If the International Criminal Court ever had any pretensions of being a serious legal institution, they were effectively demolished by yesterday’s ruling overturning Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s decision not to investigate Israel’s botched raid on a 2010 flotilla to Gaza. Reading the ruling feels like falling down the rabbit hole straight into the Queen of Hearts’ courtroom, for many reasons. But here’s the one I found most astonishing: In a 27-page document devoted almost entirely to discussing whether the alleged Israeli crimes were grave enough to merit the court’s attention, not once did the majority judges mention one the most salient facts of the case: that flotilla passengers had attacked the Israeli soldiers with “fists, knives, chains, wooden clubs, iron rods, and slingshots with metal and glass projectiles,” causing nine soldiers serious injuries.
That fact appeared only in Judge Peter Kovacs’ dissent. Anyone reading the majority decision would conclude that the soldiers opened fire no reason whatsoever.
This is not a minor detail; it was central to Bensouda’s decision to close the case. She noted that the soldiers opened fire, ultimately killing 10 passengers, aboard only one of the flotilla’s seven ships – the one where passengers attacked them. That strongly indicates there was no deliberate plan to kill civilians; rather, the soldiers intended to peacefully intercept all the vessels, and the killings were the unpremeditated result of a chaotic combat situation that unexpectedly developed aboard one ship. Or in her words, “none of the information available suggests the intended object of the attack was the civilian passengers on board these vessels.”
The majority judges, however, dismiss that conclusion, asserting that the lack of casualties aboard the other ships doesn’t preclude the possibility that soldiers intended from the outset to kill the Mavi Marmara’s passengers. They then offer a string of wild suppositions to explain why soldiers might have wanted to perpetrate a massacre aboard that ship but not the others. Perhaps, they suggest gravely, it’s because the Mavi Marmara carried the most passengers. Or, perhaps because it carried no humanitarian aid. In any event, the soldiers clearly used more violence against the Mavi Marmara than against other ships that also refused their orders to halt, so “It is reasonable to consider these circumstances as possibly explaining that the Mavi Marmara was treated by the IDF differently from the other vessels of the flotilla from the outset.”
But of course, the only way to make that unsupported speculation remotely plausible is by ignoring the fact that the Mavi Marmara was the only ship whose passengers brutally attacked the soldiers. Once you acknowledge this fact, it’s obvious that it’s a far more likely explanation for the ship’s different treatment than any of the majority judges’ outlandish theories.
So how do they get around this problem? Very simply: by refusing to admit the fact’s existence. At no point in those 27 pages do they ever acknowledge that the passengers attacked the soldiers. And then, having obliterated the actual reason why the soldiers opened fire from the record, they can accuse Bensouda of having erred by not considering their alternate-universe theory that the soldiers opened fire out of malice aforethought.
In the Queen of Hearts’ courtroom, the rule is “Sentence first – verdict afterwards.” The ICC judges, in contrast, are perfectly willing to let the verdict precede the sentence; they merely insist that said verdict exclude any evidence which might contradict their preconceived conclusions.
And, in that case, the Queen of Hearts’ approach actually makes much more sense. If you already know what the verdict is going to be, it’s much more efficient to move straight to the sentence. At least that way you don’t waste taxpayers’ time and money on lengthy legal proceedings.
Perennial analysis and considerations galore lead to self destruction. Neither the ICC nor Netanyahu “actions” are of consequence if we cease to be linked to those agents of destruction. The people must cut loose from both and then some.
Netanyahu must not remain in power and the government structure set in place by MAPAO-MAPAM must be dismantled, not massaged “from within”.
That corrective action need is already well past due.
Israel does not have a military but a vast weapons depot system without a purpose. The only efficient use of the “special units” is to either prevent construction or to destry Jewish farms and villages.
Time is running out to join those that plan to re orient the ship of state here.
Again. There is nothing one can expect from Netanyahu other than lies, posing, speecherism, betrayals, cowardice, destruction…
the question is not whether the ICC is a corrupt set of willing collaborators in a corrupt system manipulated by corrupt institutions,, govs and individuals. the answer to that is an easy YES as being self evident.
The real question begging an answer is: who is manipulating the ICC, towards what end, why and what is the significance of the timing?
This is where energy needs to be spent in order to perceive what is really going on behind this obviously ludicrous and unabashedly shameless “decision”.
My view is that it is an intentional transparent threat to Israel, Israels leaders, citizenry etc. meant to send a message to Israels public. A threat that is meant to be perceived by the public and frighten the Israeli public. But for what purpose????? I conclude that because we have no signals that the threats went through normal diplomatic channels between leaders. I am sure that the leaders of the EU and Obama both knew about it and had a role in the declaration. But why does BB appear to know nothing, why did it appear (ludicrously) so publicly as if a sudden decision of the ICC judges; it is obviously orchestrated.
At this time there are 2 ongoing processes in the forefront of the minds of those who have the ability to control the ICC: the iran deal and the pal peace negotiations.
The last consideration should be that it is NOT an orchestrated manipulation that it is NOT an intentional public message. That would have found its way through diplomatic quiet channels.
I am suspicious that BB was aware that this was going to come down. The answer will lie in his response and the response of the left. If we see calls from the left for the dire need to come to the negotiating table with the pals, capitulate to their demands for coming to the table…. if we see just rhetoric from BB …… then I will conclude that it is designed with the knowledge of the gov to soften up the Israeli public for concessions. We have already seen the very odd show of BB gov lobbying to help gaza rebuild with no worry about hamas rearming and rebuilding tunnels(soldiers were slaughtered yesterday and today he is rebuilding gaza????); we see that BB does not stop eu illegal building in area C…… however as a self appointed “leader of the right wing” BB cannot keep his constituency in place and give concessions without appearing to have put up a big fight…. his rhetoric must always appear to support his image, if not his actions.
lets see how this progresses and how it affects politics in Israel.
I would go a little further back than the actual attack on the IDF soldiers. The fact is that the flotilla’s intent was to break through the Israeli lines. When people try to do this, they must expect that there will be some form of action to prevent their breaking through. This action may or may not be violent, but one way or another they will not be allowed through.
The court (such as it is), reflecting “world opinion,” appears to believe that the Israelis should have simply allowed the flotilla unrestricted passage to Gaza…
I only would like to know why is it that the lame, pretend government here allows “un” marauders in uniform to roam about Eretz israel at will and to set up camps as well.