

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Palestine's decision to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the face of strong opposition - including from the United States, Israel, and Canada - deserves international support.
The ICC treaty officially went into effect for Palestine on April 1, 2015, giving the court a mandate dating back to June 13, 2014, over serious crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on or from Palestinian territory.
"Governments seeking to penalize Palestine for joining the ICC should immediately end their pressure, and countries that support universal acceptance of the court's treaty should speak out to welcome its membership," said Balkees Jarrah, international justice counsel at Human Rights Watch. "What's objectionable is the attempts to undermine international justice, not Palestine's decision to join a treaty to which over 100 countries around the world are members."
On January 2, 2015, Palestinian authorities transmitted a copy of Palestine's ICC accession instrument to the United Nations Secretariat. As depository for the ICC treaty, the UN secretary-general officially accepted the document on January 6 and circulated a notification indicating that Palestine would formally become an ICC state party on April 1, making it the 123rd member of the court. On January 1, the Palestinian government had also lodged a declaration, giving the court a mandate back to June 13, 2014, to cover the 2014 conflict in Gaza.
Based on her policy for when she receives declarations accepting the court's jurisdiction, Fatou Bensouda, the ICC prosecutor, opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestine on January 16. During the preliminary examination phase, the prosecutor determines whether the criteria have been met to merit pursuing a formal investigation.
The US has stated that it does not believe that Palestine is a state and that it is therefore ineligible to join the ICC. The US also opposes an ICC investigation of Israeli officials. In December, President Barack Obama signed into law an appropriations act that would cut off some aid to the Palestinian Authority if "the Palestinians initiate" or "actively support" an ICC "judicially authorized" investigation "that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians." Seventy-five US Senators have also urged the Obama administration to make clear that the ICC is not a "legitimate or viable path for the Palestinians."
From January to March, Israel withheld about US$400 million in tax revenue that Israel collects on behalf of Palestinian authorities in response to the decision by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to join the ICC. As a result, 160,000 Palestinian public employees have been paid only 60 percent of their salaries for three months. On March 27, Israel announced it would release some of the accrued Palestinian tax revenue.
Despite reports that the Palestinians are set to lodge a complaint against Israel at the ICC, only the court's prosecutor and in some instances its judges have the authority to decide what cases - if any - to pursue for investigation based on the information available, Human Rights Watch said. However, countries may submit information to the prosecutor for analysis by her office.
"The ICC prosecutor examines allegations of serious crimes no matter the perpetrator, and makes her own determinations about how to proceed based on the evidence" Jarrah said. "Any decision whether to pursue an investigation and against whom is not in the hands of the Palestinians or the Israelis."
The Office of the Prosecutor's ongoing inquiry includes analyzing whether ICC crimes have been committed, whether those crimes are sufficiently grave to merit the court's attention, and whether national authorities are genuinely carrying out credible investigations and, if appropriate, prosecutions in relation to potential cases being considered for investigation by the court, Human Rights Watch said.
There is no specific timeline for how long a preliminary examination might take, which varies from situation to situation. Bensouda has said she is conducting eight other preliminary examinations in situations around the world, including in Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Iraq, Nigeria, and Ukraine.
Human Rights Watch documented unlawful attacks, including some that are war crimes, during the 2014 hostilities in Gaza. Fighting killed more than 1,500 civilians in the Gaza Strip, damaged hospitals and other critical infrastructure, and destroyed the homes of more than 100,000 Palestinians. Palestinian armed groups launched rockets and mortars indiscriminately toward Israeli population centers.
Neither side has yet to make meaningful progress in providing justice for serious laws-of-war violations during the 2014 conflict. Israeli military inquiries into the Gaza hostilities are ongoing, and Israel has announced an investigation by its state comptroller. The Palestinian government in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza are not known to have carried out any investigations. Both Israel's and the Palestinians' history of accountability for violations by their forces is poor, Human Rights Watch said.
At issue is not only both sides' conduct of the Gaza war. The ICC statute also classifies as a war crime an occupying power's transfer of its own civilians "directly or indirectly" into territory it occupies. The transfer of people in the occupied territory from their homes to within or outside this territory is also a war crime.
Since it occupied the Palestinian territories in 1967, Israel has facilitated the movement of its citizens into West Bank settlements, including East Jerusalem. Since Benjamin Netanyahu became Israel's prime minister in 2009, Israel has begun construction of more than 10,400 settlement homes. Israeli demolitions in the West Bank during the same period left more than 5,333 Palestinians homeless, including 1,103 in 2013 and 1,177 in 2014. Israel published tenders for 450 new settlement units in the West Bank on January 30.
"Given that the ICC prosecutor will act only in the absence of credible national proceedings, both Israeli and Palestinian authorities have the opportunity to avoid the court's intervention by undertaking their own genuine investigations and prosecutions," Jarrah said. "In the absence of credible domestic efforts, the ICC could step in to diminish the accountability gap for grave abuses."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"
"These hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
Rep. Ro Khanna this week was detained by a group of Israeli settlers whom he described as "hoodlums... with machine guns" while making a visit to a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank.
In an interview with Reuters published on Saturday, Khanna (D-Calif.) said he and his tour group were surrounded by armed settlers as they were traveling through the West Bank on Wednesday.
"We were at a village that Israeli settlers had destroyed, they had destroyed the school, they had destroyed that village, and we were just looking at it," said Khanna. "And these hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
The California Democrat said that the settlers called in members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to help them deal with him and his group.
"The IDF is on their side," Khanna remarked, "not on the side of the Americans."
Cameron Kasky, an aide to Khanna, told Reuters that the group was held for over an hour before officials whom he believed to be police intervened and secured their release.
The IDF told Reuters that both military troops and police officers dispersed the settlers who had set up a roadblock near the small Palestinian village of Khirbet Zanuta.
Khanna wasn't the only American to have a run-in with Israeli settlers this week, as CNN reported that four settlers attacked groups of journalists, including CNN reporters and crew, who were traveling through an area north of the Palestinian city of Ramallah on Saturday.
As the journalists were driving, four settlers blocked off the road with their cars and began attacking the reporters' vehicles with wooden clubs and metal rods.
"The settlers then began to jump on the vehicle behind CNN's—carrying another group of journalists—and smashed the windshield of that vehicle," the network reported. "Another group of settlers tried to block a separate exit route before chasing the journalists towards the town of Sinjil."
Israeli police arrived on the scene and arrested four settlers who were allegedly responsible for the attacks, CNN reported.
"The Israel Police and the IDF view any manifestation of violence or causing damage to property very seriously," the Israeli officers said after the arrests, "especially when it concerns media personnel performing their work."
Israeli settlers for years have carried out violent attacks on Palestinians living in the West Bank, and witnesses have regularly described IDF soldiers at the scene either standing by as the attacks occur or even actively helping the attackers.
In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that claims about settler violence have been "blown up beyond belief," describing attacks as being carried out by a small number of "juvenile delinquents."
"This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
The Trump administration on Friday escalated its war with the press by subpoenaing several reporters at The New York Times days after the paper published a story on Wednesday that detailed security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
According to the Times, the subpoenas are attempting to force reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday next week, a move that the paper describes as an "extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations."
The issued subpoenas do not specifically name the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet as the reason for the grand jury probe, although they were given to all four journalists—Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and Eric Lipton—who reported the story.
Additionally, the Times noted, a senior official at the FBI had asked the paper to hold off publishing its story on the jet before it came out on Wednesday, citing unspecified national security concerns about its content.
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times' newsroom, denounced the subpoenas as an attack on the freedom of the press.
"The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects," said McGraw. “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
It is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather information.
Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state for President Barack Obama, said that the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet, whose security upgrades are being financed with US tax dollars, is completely within the scope of constitutional protections for press freedom.
"The reporting that the Times journalists have been subpoenaed for is exactly the kind of journalism the First Amendment is designed to protect: matters involving national security and taxpayer dollars," wrote Stengel in a Saturday social media post. "Reporting that embarrasses a president is protected speech."
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin also denounced the Trump administration for trying to drag reporters into a grand jury investigation.
"This action by the US government to subpoena reporters for reporting legitimate news on security concerns about Air Force One should alarm every American," Griffin wrote.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, accused the Trump administration of abusing government power not to defend national security, but to protect the president from personal humiliation.
"We've long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security," said Stern. "This is as clear an example as you can get. The administration's embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn't secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press."
This is the second time in recent weeks that the Trump administration has tried to subpoena reporters to compel their testimony in grand jury investigations.
In June, the US Department of Justice issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.