Israel Will Finally Cooperate, But Demands Immunity

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
<a href="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=156139&contrassID=2&subContrass ID=1&sbSubContrassID=0" target="_blank">The Link</a>



Israel will not block the UN fact-finding commission on Jenin and will not ask to disqualify any of the appointed members, but will insist that anyone who testifies to the commission should be granted immunity from criminal prosecution on the basis of its findings, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday.



If such immunity is not granted, Peres said, Israel will not permit any Israeli to testify.




*snip*



Annan replied that Peres' requests seemed reasonable. ????



Now, I may be misreading this or something, but isn't this essentially "We'll cooperate, as long as we don't get in trouble for whatever you find."?



---



There's a bit of humor value in <a href="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=156145&contrassID=2&subContrass ID=1&sbSubContrassID=0" target="_blank">this report</a>:



Quick make-shift trial in Arafat's besieged headquarters, doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 80
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    It's means also that Israelians fear what UN can discover in Jenin.
  • Reply 2 of 80
    rashumonrashumon Posts: 453member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong><a href="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=156139&contrassID=2&subContrass ID=1&sbSubContrassID=0" target="_blank">The Link</a>



    [b]Israel will not block the UN fact-finding commission on Jenin and will not ask to disqualify any of the appointed members, but will insist that anyone who testifies to the commission should be granted immunity from criminal prosecution on the basis of its findings, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday.



    .</strong><hr></blockquote>



    why don't you include the whole article ? instead of the bits that only suit you ? there's a far more complex issue here then you make it to be



    Thats the full thing....



    Israel accepts UN panel, but demands immunity for testifiers By Aluf Benn



    Israel will not block the UN fact-finding commission on Jenin and will not ask to disqualify any of the appointed members, but will insist that anyone who testifies to the commission should be granted immunity from criminal prosecution on the basis of its findings, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday.



    If such immunity is not granted, Peres said, Israel will not permit any Israeli to testify. Peres also asked that the committee's report be given to the sides for comment before it is submitted to Annan, and urged that experts in counter-terrorism and urban warfare be added to the panel. Annan replied that Peres' requests seemed reasonable.



    Annan also met a legal delegation from Jerusalem yesterday at UN headquarters in New York. It was not clear last night whether the discussions, which began late, would end yesterday or continue today.



    The delegation presented three main demands. The UN mission should concentrate only on Jenin; military and counter-terrorism experts should be added to look into the organizations that used the camp as a base for suicide bombings; and the report should present facts but no conclusions.



    Annan partially acceded to the first two demands, and two more military advisers were added to the group yesterday. "It was decided that General [William] Nash will be assisted by two military staff officers and more experts will be brought on board as needed," UN spokesman Fred Eckhard said.



    Nash, an American, is the only military expert on the panel. The names and nationalities of the two staff officers were not disclosed. But the secretary-general was quoted as telling colleagues that Israel could not dictate the outcome of the report and that "we won't just be counting bodies," diplomats said.



    Israel had originally objected to the inclusion of Cornelio Sommaruga, a former president of the International Red Cross, on the panel, because Sommaruga had a history of anti-Semitic comments (once reportedly comparing the Jewish Star to the swastika). However, it has apparently decided to drop this objection. The fact-finding team, which is led by former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, is due to arrive in the region on Saturday.



    Meanwhile, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon yesterday said he never saw the memorandum by an outside consultant that was the source of Israel's abrupt about-face on the committee.



    The memo, written by a British expert in international law, Daniel Bethlehem, warned that the UN committee appeared to be aimed not at fact-finding, but at preparing war crimes indictments against Israelis. It was partly this memo which on Tuesday caused the cabinet to reverse its earlier decision to cooperate with the panel.



    But Peres yesterday said the letter defining the committee's mandate - one of the factors that raised Bethlehem's, and Israel's, suspicions about its intentions - was actually only a draft prepared by Annan's aide, which the



    But Peres yesterday said the letter defining the committee's mandate - one of the factors that raised Bethlehem's, and Israel's, suspicions about its intentions - was actually only a draft prepared by Annan's aide, which the secretary general had not yet approved.
  • Reply 3 of 80
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Yeah, and the UN has a history of condemning Israel while either ignoring Palestinian terrorism or even saying their "right to resist" is A-OK. Israel is justified in its skepticism of the UN, with its large number of Arab and Muslim members and relatively few Israel supporters.



    About Jenin, the UN has already decided that Israel was in the wrong.



    To get a good view of the UN's view of Israel, read <a href="http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:_iJpN1wj05UC:www.pchrgaza.org/Interventions/chr2002_8oral.pdf+human+rights+commission+israel+% 22right+to+resist%22&hl=en" target="_blank"> this</a>. In it, the UN condemns Israel yet again, but makes no mention of the dozens of Palestinian terrorist killings of Israeli citizens, and actually dismisses it by putting quotes around "terror" and calling it a pretext:

    [quote]Rooting out 'terror' and destroying 'terror bases' is the pretext given for these actions.<hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 4 of 80
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    In a situation like this, Gaining immunity by telling the truth is a fair principle. Very much in accord with how the "Truth and Reconciliation Commision" worked in South Africa. Getting the parties to talk is important, getting them to admit their mistakes is even better.
  • Reply 5 of 80
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Since the text is adressing israeli human rights abuse in the OT, and is not, as far as I can tell a UN document, but a speach made by the palestinian human rights delagation to the UN, you can hardly expect to find much reference to palestinian terrorism here.

    This document does not at all reflect official UN policy (regretably maybe...).



    Why don't you read the real UN resolutions like <a href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7348.doc.htm"; target="_blank">1402</a>, You'll see that they adress the obligations of both parties...
  • Reply 6 of 80
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by New:

    <strong>Why don't you read the real UN resolutions like <a href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7348.doc.htm"; target="_blank">1402</a>, You'll see that they adress the obligations of both parties...</strong><hr></blockquote>That's a Security Council resolution, which as you know the US can veto. The Human Rights Commission resolutions tend to be a bit different. [/understatement]



    I believe the Human Rights Commission adopted that statement that I linked above, but I couldn't confirm that with an internet search.



    [edit, found this]

    [quote]Financial Times (London) April 16, 2002, Tuesday



    Copyright 2002 The Financial Times Limited

    Financial Times (London)



    April 16, 2002, Tuesday London Edition 2



    SECTION: MIDDLE EAST; Pg. 8



    UN condemns 'mass killings' of Palestinians



    The United Nations human rights commission yesterday condemned Israel for its "mass killings" of Palestinians, in a resolution that highlighted the divide among European Union members on the subject, writes Carola Hoyos, United Nations Correspondent.



    Six of the nine EU countries on the commission voted in favour of the resolution, which criticises Israel for "gross violations" of humanitarian law, but affirms the "legitimate right of Palestinian people to resist". Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, voted in favour. Germany and the UK voted against and Italy abstained. Walter Lewalter, Germany's ambassador, said: "The text contains formulations that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence. There is no condemnation whatsoever of terrorism."



    The resolution was put forward by Arab states.



    LOAD-DATE: April 15, 2002 <hr></blockquote>



    [ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 80
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Still, its not even a general assembly resolution, find one. If you want to start critizising the UN, you can't just go picking out single text you don't like. The Security council and the general assambly is the highest institotions of the UN. The human rights commision can write this because of its task to adresse human rights issues, not speak on behalf of the UN body as a whole. And as your quote states, there where votes against the text.

    If you don't agree that human rights have been violated in the conflict, you need to look again. And don't go; "but the palestinians do it to", yes they do, but you can still critizis Israel for these issues. Especially since its a democracy. We have higher standards for democracies, maybe we shouldn't, but we all do.
  • Reply 8 of 80
    rashumonrashumon Posts: 453member
    [quote]Originally posted by New:

    <strong>Still, its not even a general assembly resolution, find one. If you want to start critizising the UN, you can't just go picking out single text you don't like. The Security council and the general assambly is the highest institotions of the UN. The human rights commision can write this because of its task to adresse human rights issues, not speak on behalf of the UN body as a whole. And as your quote states, there where votes against the text.

    If you don't agree that human rights have been violated in the conflict, you need to look again. And don't go; "but the palestinians do it to", yes they do, but you can still critizis Israel for these issues. Especially since its a democracy. We have higher standards for democracies, maybe we shouldn't, but we all do.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Fair enough but why doesn't the human rights commission ever criticize Palestinian or indeed Arab violations ( far more frequent then Israeli ones)of human rights ? How can Israelis respect these UN double standards ? how can the UN have any credibility with these kind of actions ?



    [ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 80
    [quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:



    <strong>It's means also that Israelians fear what UN can discover in Jenin.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    More likely it means they don't expect the UN to be an impartial arbiter. I wouldn't either.
  • Reply 10 of 80
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by New:

    <strong>And don't go; "but the palestinians do it to", yes they do, but you can still critizis Israel for these issues. Especially since its a democracy. We have higher standards for democracies, maybe we shouldn't, but we all do.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes! This is exactly what I've been looking for from your side. Let's just be up front and say we're only going to criticize Israel. Let's hold the Arab side to a lower standard - let's give them a free pass. This is your side's MO. I'm just glad to see you acknowledge it. I'll know where you're coming from from now on - applying two different standards, only looking at one side of the issue.

  • Reply 11 of 80
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Where do you get this ridiculous idea that Palestinian terrorism isn't condemned? The most powerful person in the UN comdemns Palestinian terror daily, every time he talks about the Middle East situation.



    What more condemnation from the UN do you need when you have every U.S. president saying Palestinians need to cut the shit out and whoever the head of the UN is at the time? What more do you want?



    I wouldn't even call it a different standard, the UN just has more access to Israel and Israel's side is far more publicized.
  • Reply 12 of 80
    a bit off topic ?



    It always strikes me as strange, the fascination people have with this subject ? namely Israel. Such a tiny nation, with an even tinier piece of land, yet, the attention it garners is awesome. Makes me think that there?s something deeply unconscious going on here. Quite unsettling?



    mika.



    [ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 80
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]Makes me think that there?s something deeply unconscious going on here.<hr></blockquote>



    Maybe it's because you guys are killing each other off by the hundreds and it has very dangerous implications on the rest of the world.



    Nothing unconscious about that.
  • Reply 14 of 80
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>



    Maybe it's because you guys are killing each other off by the hundreds and it has very dangerous implications on the rest of the world.



    Nothing unconscious about that.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Maybe. I don?t know.



    During the Cold War, I would have probably agreed. Now, I?m not sure one can still rationalize it that way. Anyway, I just find it strange. My gut tells me that there?s more to this than meets the eye?



    Mika.



    [ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 80
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    The Cold War was cold. No bloodshed. Cold war. This is a very Hot war. Many deaths. Lots of bloodshed. There's quite a drastic difference.



    And what are you implying?
  • Reply 16 of 80
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>The Cold War was cold. No bloodshed. Cold war.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not exactly. Viet Nam and Korea were part of the Cold War.
  • Reply 17 of 80
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    No, they weren't.



    Vietnam and Korea were about communism and containment, but The Cold War specifically refers to our "cold war" (clever bit, that) with the U.S.S.R.



    Both Vietnam and Korea's main commie-pinko-scumbag threat was from China.



    ("The people of Vietnam chose communism!? **** that! Send in some 'advisors'!" - John F. 'God Himself' Kennedy)



    Also, Vietnam and Korea don't have the worldwide implications that Israel/Palestine does, even if our fearmongers in the .gov were trying to make it sound like the entire world would fall under dictatorial communism if the yellow people got it.
  • Reply 18 of 80
    Edit:



    [ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 80
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]It almost seems like some super natural force is at play here. As if something is testing Israel.<hr></blockquote>



    Yes, that is frightening.



    What does "testing Israel" mean? Like testing Israel's patience?
  • Reply 20 of 80
    Edit: nevermind...



    [ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.