HYPOCRISY, DOUBLE STANDARDS, AND THE POLITICISATION OF GENOCIDE – a new article by William Hanna
Hi all,
in the following we are presenting you the new article by William Hanna entitled Hypocrisy, double Standards, and
the Politicisation of Genocide.
the Politicisation of Genocide.
We are very happy if you can send us your comments and remarks about this interesting article.
thank you
Dr. phil. Milena Rampoldi
Editorial Team of ProMosaik e.V.
Hypocrisy,
Double Standards, and the Politicisation of Genocide
Double Standards, and the Politicisation of Genocide
An Extremely
Dangerous Palestinian Terrorist Against Whom Israel
Dangerous Palestinian Terrorist Against Whom Israel
with its “most
moral army in the world” is Defending Itself
moral army in the world” is Defending Itself
On 17 July 1998, the
international community reached an historic milestone — that has so far proved
of little useful purpose — when 120 States adopted the Rome Statute (http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm),
the legal basis for establishing a permanent International Criminal Court
(ICC). The Court’s mandate was “to try individuals rather than States, and to
hold such persons accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression, when the conditions for
the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the latter are fulfilled.”
Therefore on that basis and in view of the fact that Israel has for over 60
years painstakingly ensured qualification for all four of the aforementioned
criminal categories, then why has the ICC failed to initiate proceedings
against those Israelis who with impunity were and still are instrumental in the
barbaric ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people?
international community reached an historic milestone — that has so far proved
of little useful purpose — when 120 States adopted the Rome Statute (http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm),
the legal basis for establishing a permanent International Criminal Court
(ICC). The Court’s mandate was “to try individuals rather than States, and to
hold such persons accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression, when the conditions for
the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the latter are fulfilled.”
Therefore on that basis and in view of the fact that Israel has for over 60
years painstakingly ensured qualification for all four of the aforementioned
criminal categories, then why has the ICC failed to initiate proceedings
against those Israelis who with impunity were and still are instrumental in the
barbaric ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people?
Apart from the inevitable obstructionist pressures
imposed by Israel — through its Western lapdogs led by the U.S. — forcing the
ICC to refrain from doing so, there is a further consideration which was raised
in the important book The Politics of Genocide by co–authors
Edward Herman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman)
and David Peterson (an independent journalist and researcher based in Chicago)
who document the double standards by which the U.S. government, the mass media,
and the intellectual establishment label, or refuse to label, particular events
as being “genocide.” In other words
whether or not an action is labeled “genocide” is dependent on the simple fact of who committed the act in question? If
for example the U.S. and/or its allies are the perpetrators, then then acts
will most certainly not be labeled as “genocide.” If on the other hand the perpetrators are regarded as
ostensible enemies of the U.S. alliance — even
if their acts may may have resulted in massively less deaths than those caused
by the U.S. or its allies —
then there is every likelihood that the
acts will be branded as “genocide.” Virtually all current “situations under
investigations” or “preliminary investigations” by the ICC concern Third World
countries.
imposed by Israel — through its Western lapdogs led by the U.S. — forcing the
ICC to refrain from doing so, there is a further consideration which was raised
in the important book The Politics of Genocide by co–authors
Edward Herman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman)
and David Peterson (an independent journalist and researcher based in Chicago)
who document the double standards by which the U.S. government, the mass media,
and the intellectual establishment label, or refuse to label, particular events
as being “genocide.” In other words
whether or not an action is labeled “genocide” is dependent on the simple fact of who committed the act in question? If
for example the U.S. and/or its allies are the perpetrators, then then acts
will most certainly not be labeled as “genocide.” If on the other hand the perpetrators are regarded as
ostensible enemies of the U.S. alliance — even
if their acts may may have resulted in massively less deaths than those caused
by the U.S. or its allies —
then there is every likelihood that the
acts will be branded as “genocide.” Virtually all current “situations under
investigations” or “preliminary investigations” by the ICC concern Third World
countries.
As an example of this double standard, the authors cite
U.S. wars and intervening sanctions against Iraq that resulted in the killing
of approximately 1,800,000 Iraqis. But despite the fact that those killings
were known to be the probable consequence of the U.S. conduct — including the deliberate targeting in the first
Gulf War of soft civilian targets such as water treatment and sanitation
facilities; electricity generating plants; roads and railways; hospitals and
clinics; and the subsequent sanctions that prevented the repair of
infrastructure essential to the survival of the Iraqi people —virtually on one has dared to label the U.S. actions as
“genocide.”
U.S. wars and intervening sanctions against Iraq that resulted in the killing
of approximately 1,800,000 Iraqis. But despite the fact that those killings
were known to be the probable consequence of the U.S. conduct — including the deliberate targeting in the first
Gulf War of soft civilian targets such as water treatment and sanitation
facilities; electricity generating plants; roads and railways; hospitals and
clinics; and the subsequent sanctions that prevented the repair of
infrastructure essential to the survival of the Iraqi people —virtually on one has dared to label the U.S. actions as
“genocide.”
By contrast there was no hesitation in applying the ‘“genocide” label
to the killing of 4,000 in Kosovo, 33,000 Bosnia, 300,000 in Darfur, and
800,000 in Rwanda. The authors also noted that the only country in the world
where more civilians were murdered than by U.S. and allied forces in Iraq, was
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) where an estimated 5.4 million
civilians had been killed during that country’s ongoing hostilities. This estimate of DRC deaths, however, was to said
to be closer to 7 million in a February 2010 report by Nicholas Kristoff in The
New York Times. As with Iraq, the DRC is also hardly ever stigmatised with
the “genocide”
label because the U.S. and its allies — in their rapacious quest for the rare minerals in the
DRC —
are responsible for the bulk of those
killings. But due to the fact that the Western Alliance controls the political
discourse, such killings will never be afforded the “genocide” label.
to the killing of 4,000 in Kosovo, 33,000 Bosnia, 300,000 in Darfur, and
800,000 in Rwanda. The authors also noted that the only country in the world
where more civilians were murdered than by U.S. and allied forces in Iraq, was
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) where an estimated 5.4 million
civilians had been killed during that country’s ongoing hostilities. This estimate of DRC deaths, however, was to said
to be closer to 7 million in a February 2010 report by Nicholas Kristoff in The
New York Times. As with Iraq, the DRC is also hardly ever stigmatised with
the “genocide”
label because the U.S. and its allies — in their rapacious quest for the rare minerals in the
DRC —
are responsible for the bulk of those
killings. But due to the fact that the Western Alliance controls the political
discourse, such killings will never be afforded the “genocide” label.
On 4 April 2012 the prosecutor of the ICC
rejected a request by the Palestinian Authority to recognise the court’s
jurisdiction. The decision effectively blocked a move to have the war crimes
tribunal based at The Hague investigate the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead (http://middleeast.about.com/od/c/g/Operation-Cast-Lead.htm).
The prosecutor said it was up to “relevant bodies” at the UN or ICC member
countries to determine whether Palestine qualified as a “state.” Only then
could it sign the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute. In other words
because of Israel’s barbaric ethnic cleansing policy designed to prevent the
establishment of a Palestinian state — that would end Israel’s ravenous theft
of more Palestinian land on which more illegal Jewish settlements would be
built — the “stateless” Palestinian people have no recourse to justice from the
UN. An Israeli foreign ministry spokesman welcomed the decision while noting
that Israel did not recognise the ICC’s jurisdiction. Though the U.S. and
Israel signed the ICC accord in 2000, they both subsequently withdrew and have
since opposed the ICC which could for example hold U.S. military and political
leaders to a uniform global standard of justice.
rejected a request by the Palestinian Authority to recognise the court’s
jurisdiction. The decision effectively blocked a move to have the war crimes
tribunal based at The Hague investigate the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead (http://middleeast.about.com/od/c/g/Operation-Cast-Lead.htm).
The prosecutor said it was up to “relevant bodies” at the UN or ICC member
countries to determine whether Palestine qualified as a “state.” Only then
could it sign the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute. In other words
because of Israel’s barbaric ethnic cleansing policy designed to prevent the
establishment of a Palestinian state — that would end Israel’s ravenous theft
of more Palestinian land on which more illegal Jewish settlements would be
built — the “stateless” Palestinian people have no recourse to justice from the
UN. An Israeli foreign ministry spokesman welcomed the decision while noting
that Israel did not recognise the ICC’s jurisdiction. Though the U.S. and
Israel signed the ICC accord in 2000, they both subsequently withdrew and have
since opposed the ICC which could for example hold U.S. military and political
leaders to a uniform global standard of justice.
“The
transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
The
ICC founding charter’s description of a war crime
ICC founding charter’s description of a war crime
Having just caused Gaza’s biggest humanitarian crisis
in many years; having savagely killed over 2,200 Palestinians; having caused
hundreds of thousands to be left homeless; and having destroyed virtually all
essential infrastructure, Israel with its supremacist, “God-chosen” impunity —
and knowing full well that the rest of the cowardly world will do nothing — has
added insult to injury by announcing plans to expropriate four square
kilometres of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank. This outrageous
expropriation of land in the area of Gush Etzion south of Bethlehem, including
many centuries-old Palestinian olive groves, is believed to be the largest
illegal seizure by Israel in 30 years and will facilitate the expansion of a
settlement named Gevaot.
in many years; having savagely killed over 2,200 Palestinians; having caused
hundreds of thousands to be left homeless; and having destroyed virtually all
essential infrastructure, Israel with its supremacist, “God-chosen” impunity —
and knowing full well that the rest of the cowardly world will do nothing — has
added insult to injury by announcing plans to expropriate four square
kilometres of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank. This outrageous
expropriation of land in the area of Gush Etzion south of Bethlehem, including
many centuries-old Palestinian olive groves, is believed to be the largest
illegal seizure by Israel in 30 years and will facilitate the expansion of a
settlement named Gevaot.
As part of a continual effort to obtain a
scintilla of justice for its people, the Palestinian Authority’s justice minister had in January 2009 lodged a declaration with the ICC unilaterally
recognising its jurisdiction for “acts committed on the territory of Palestine
since 1 July 2002.” Luis
Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC’s chief prosecutor’s response was that a decision on
whether the Palestinian Authority was legally entitled to do so, could not be
made immediately. The Office
of the Prosecutor subsequently announced that it could not act on the
Palestinian declaration because Article 12 of the Rome Statute established that
only a “state” could confer jurisdiction on the court and deposit an instrument
of accession with the UN secretary general. The announcement added that
“in instances where it is controversial or unclear whether an applicant
constitutes a ‘state,’ it is the practice of the secretary general to follow or
seek the General Assembly’s directives on the matter . . . this is reflected in
General Assembly resolutions, which provide indications of whether an applicant
is a ‘state.’ Though Palestine has been recognised as a state in bilateral
relations by more than 130 governments and certain international organisations,
including UN bodies, the current status granted by the General Assembly to the
Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is that of ‘observer,’ and not
‘non-member state.’ ”
scintilla of justice for its people, the Palestinian Authority’s justice minister had in January 2009 lodged a declaration with the ICC unilaterally
recognising its jurisdiction for “acts committed on the territory of Palestine
since 1 July 2002.” Luis
Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC’s chief prosecutor’s response was that a decision on
whether the Palestinian Authority was legally entitled to do so, could not be
made immediately. The Office
of the Prosecutor subsequently announced that it could not act on the
Palestinian declaration because Article 12 of the Rome Statute established that
only a “state” could confer jurisdiction on the court and deposit an instrument
of accession with the UN secretary general. The announcement added that
“in instances where it is controversial or unclear whether an applicant
constitutes a ‘state,’ it is the practice of the secretary general to follow or
seek the General Assembly’s directives on the matter . . . this is reflected in
General Assembly resolutions, which provide indications of whether an applicant
is a ‘state.’ Though Palestine has been recognised as a state in bilateral
relations by more than 130 governments and certain international organisations,
including UN bodies, the current status granted by the General Assembly to the
Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is that of ‘observer,’ and not
‘non-member state.’ ”
Amnesty International said the decision
by the ICC prosecutor meant Palestinian and Israeli victims of crimes allegedly
committed during the Gaza war were unlikely to get justice. Marek Marczynski,
head of Amnesty’s International Justice campaign, said that “This dangerous
decision opens the ICC to accusations of political bias and is inconsistent
with the independence of the ICC. It also breached the Rome Statute which
clearly stated that such matters should be considered by the institution’s
judges.” In September of that same year, the Palestinians submitted an application
for admission to the UN as a member state, but the Security Council made no
recommendation with Israel’s lapdog, the U.S., promising to veto any vote on
the matter.
by the ICC prosecutor meant Palestinian and Israeli victims of crimes allegedly
committed during the Gaza war were unlikely to get justice. Marek Marczynski,
head of Amnesty’s International Justice campaign, said that “This dangerous
decision opens the ICC to accusations of political bias and is inconsistent
with the independence of the ICC. It also breached the Rome Statute which
clearly stated that such matters should be considered by the institution’s
judges.” In September of that same year, the Palestinians submitted an application
for admission to the UN as a member state, but the Security Council made no
recommendation with Israel’s lapdog, the U.S., promising to veto any vote on
the matter.
AIPAC/U.S.-led Western hypocrisy, double
standards, and the politicisation of genocide have consistently undermined the
main international institutions — the UN (http://www.un.org/en/index.shtml),
the World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org),
the OECD (http://www.oecd.org), and the ICC (http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/Pages/default.aspx)
— that were established for the enforcement of human rights, the implementation
justice, and the betterment of conditions for all humanity. Honest,
self-respecting human beings — yes, including Jews — cannot on any grounds deny
that Israel’s barbaric treatment of the Palestinian people warrants unconditional
universal condemnation; Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions; and an unencumbered
opening of investigations into Israel’s Gaza war crimes by the International
Criminal Court. Anything less would constitute yet more contemptible criminal
complicity.
standards, and the politicisation of genocide have consistently undermined the
main international institutions — the UN (http://www.un.org/en/index.shtml),
the World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org),
the OECD (http://www.oecd.org), and the ICC (http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/Pages/default.aspx)
— that were established for the enforcement of human rights, the implementation
justice, and the betterment of conditions for all humanity. Honest,
self-respecting human beings — yes, including Jews — cannot on any grounds deny
that Israel’s barbaric treatment of the Palestinian people warrants unconditional
universal condemnation; Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions; and an unencumbered
opening of investigations into Israel’s Gaza war crimes by the International
Criminal Court. Anything less would constitute yet more contemptible criminal
complicity.
