« A Deliberate Oversimplification | Main | When all isn't fair in... war »

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Turnabout is fair play

When Fatah and Hamas signed their unity deal back in early June, the European Union, the United Nations, the United States, China, India, Russia and Turkey all agreed to work with it, and ignored Israel's objections.  

Although Israel was completely against any unity deal that included an unreformed terror organization such as Hamas, everyone tried to sell it to us by pointing out that there were no actual Hamas members in the unity government's cabinet, and that once the unity deal was signed, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority would became responsible for both the West Bank and Gaza.

'Trust us', they said.  They assured us that the mechanics of the agreement would do away with the status quo whereby the Palestinians had two separate governments; one ruled by Fatah in the West Bank and the other by Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and would create a situation where the Palestinians spoke and acted with one voice.

So here's my question:

Now that the Palestinians (notice I'm no longer differentiating between Fatah and Hamas... as the unity deal is still very much in place), have committed a host of actionable war crimes, including (but not limited to) repeatedly:

  • targeting Israeli civilians with missiles
  • attempted kidnappings / terror attacks against Israeli civilians
  • using Palestinian civilians as human shields
  • storing and firing weapons from within schools, hospitals and mosques
  • engaging in combat operations while wearing enemy (IDF) uniforms and insignia
  • carrying out all of the above under a flag of truce / during a cease fire

... how is it that we aren't demanding that Mahmoud Abbas and the entire PA unity cabinet be brought before the International Court of Justice to answer for these war crimes?

It seems to me that if all the entities and countries I mentioned above gave us their assurances that Abbas and the PA Unity Government would now be solely responsible for the actions of the Palestinians... we should be able to hold them to that, no?

Forget the current and past Hamas leadership.  We can pick them off at our leisure in targeted strikes wherever and whenever we wish.  

But after all the years that Israeli government officials and senior IDF officers couldn't travel abroad for fear of being arrested and thrown into the dock at the Hague based on Palestinian accusations, isn't turnabout fair play?  

After all, if they can't be held to the agreements they sign with one another... how can they be expected to honor any agreements they may sign with us?!

Please show your work.

Posted by David Bogner on July 29, 2014 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Turnabout is fair play:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David, I'm sure your question is rhetorical. You know as well as anybody that the Palestinians are the big fluffy huggable whale of the world; they couldn't be more admired than if they shat tofu.

Besides, dragging them through the courts would be pointless. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Qataris would just start funding other proxies. Like Isis.

Oh wait. They've already done so.

Posted by: AtTheBackoftheHill | Jul 29, 2014 7:45:18 PM

And how come do we not hold the Gaza electorate accountable for their choices? How can we can consider them innocent civilians? Or are they babies who can't tell their right hand from the left? Then what business do they have voting and wanting their own state?

Posted by: Greg T | Jul 29, 2014 7:54:23 PM

This is a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Posted by: Elisson | Jul 29, 2014 7:58:44 PM

While we are asking questions, which government agencies are responsible for allowing all the concrete to be imported and continue to transfer currency to gaza instead of paying the electric 1.5 Billion shekel owed?

Posted by: dave | Jul 29, 2014 10:59:19 PM

Well, you're right. Apparently, guerrilla groups that achieve or aspire to statehood can be prosecuted for war crimes. But it's complicated. Exhibit A, from today's New York Times:


Posted by: Ari | Jul 29, 2014 11:35:32 PM

The short answer is that membership in the International Criminal Court was not among the treaties it signed onto, precisely for these reasons.

Posted by: Rich | Jul 30, 2014 12:55:18 AM

I was thinking the other day that this whole war and its timing is a little contrived on Hamas's part. Is it not possible that the real reason there is a Fatah and Hamas unity government is because of the war? Sort of akin to the unity government that Israelis created just prior to the Six Day War? Just a thought ... Israel's enemies do seem to copy her from time to time.

Posted by: Coyote | Jul 30, 2014 3:00:58 PM

is the being used by Iran as a cover and also a test of Issraeli defence?

Posted by: dave | Jul 30, 2014 5:22:41 PM

Here's more on this topic. Article suggests that our pals may increase membership in the ICC in the next few days, but open themselves up to prosecution for their war crimes:


Posted by: Ari | Jul 31, 2014 3:36:58 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.