Unbelievable tap-dancing by the U.S. Department of State during a press briefing August 5th. The reporter repeatedly pushes the question if if the atrocities in Israel / Gaza will be investigated as war crimes, perhaps by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. position, between the multiple evasions is that yes there were atrocities and we will block any investigation of them as non constructive. Let the truth not be known. Perhaps all nations should adopt this internally for their peoples; that no cases can go to court where the alleged victim or the police investigation accuse a party before there is a mutually-agreed guilty verdict with the accused. By ending the unilateral, prejudged filings of the plaintiff against the accused, expensive judiciary systems would no longer be required. _______________________________ Do we have any more on Gaza? QUESTION: Yeah. Can you go back to the allegations primarily against the Israeli military, but also against Hamas, of civilian casualties, some using language such as “genocide,” “human rights violations”? The U.S. has expressed its concern over the way that some of the Israeli military’s actions were conducted during this operation, and I note your colleague at the White House did so very pointedly last Thursday. What is being done in terms of accountability since it seems that the fighting has stopped, an accountability for both sides? MS. PSAKI: Well, Roz, I think, one, the point we were – we made with our public statements from the State Department as well is that while we certainly respect Israel’s right to defend themselves, there’s certainly more that could be done or could have been done to prevent and avoid civilian casualties. That’s the case in any war zone. And I know – and this may be what you’re referring to – that there are reports of a push for an ICC investigation. Our view is that we continue to strongly oppose unilateral actions that seek to circumvent or prejudge the very outcomes that can only be negotiated. We’ve been very clear that, while we’ve expressed concerns when we’ve had them, there is – the only realistic path for realizing Palestinian aspirations of statehood is through direct negotiations between the parties. Obviously, our focus right now continues to be on addressing this current situation. So, go ahead. QUESTION: Does that mean that as part of whatever these talks will be that the question of overreach, atrocities, whatever word that you want to use, from both sides would be addressed in that venue as opposed to in ICC? MS. PSAKI: I think that wasn’t what I was saying at all, Roz. What I was saying – I think we know what the issues will be, which are the issues that were presented by both sides. That would be the focus of the negotiations, whether that’s security for Israel or that’s economic opportunity for the Palestinian side. QUESTION: Well, I guess what I’m asking – just – sorry, Matt. I guess what I’m asking is: Things happened in the last 29 days, and there are going to be people on both sides expecting some sort of resolution of what happened. How will that be done? MS. PSAKI: Well, right now our focus is on seeing if the cease-fire can be extended, seeing if these core issues can be – these key issues can be addressed. The question of what the UN Security Council might do will be evaluated at a later time. QUESTION: I don’t understand how you are concerned about an ICC investigation prejudging the outcome of final negotiations unless you are saying that the potential or possibility of war crimes having been committed is going to now be part of the peace process, in which case I think that the chances are -- MS. PSAKI: That’s not what I was saying. QUESTION: Like, what -- MS. PSAKI: I think the reason I used that broad reference is because there have been – this is not the first time there have been rumors of; certainly, there have been issues raised in the past, and we think there’s other forums to address them. QUESTION: Right, but -- QUESTION: Why shouldn’t – just in the interests of justice, why shouldn’t allegations of war crimes in any conflict be addressed in some forum? Why not? MS. PSAKI: I wasn’t saying that in any broad – I wasn’t making a broad point that it shouldn’t be, Arshad. I think our focus -- QUESTION: Just not at the ICC? MS. PSAKI: Our focus right now is on addressing the current situation. QUESTION: Why shouldn’t an allegation of war crimes by any side in any conflict be addressed at the ICC? Why is that a bad forum? Why shouldn’t that happen? MS. PSAKI: We – as you know, there have been occasions where we have been supportive of that. QUESTION: So – but my question is, why not now? I mean -- MS. PSAKI: I think there is going to be a great deal of time to make a determination about what happened and what issues should be raised at a higher level, but right now we think the focus should be on addressing the current situation. QUESTION: But why? I mean, I understand the underlying argument, I think, which is that if the Palestinians seek to join the Rome Statute or to sign onto it and then raise it, that that is a unilateral action that you believe prejudices the outcome. Correct? MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: But I don’t understand why, leaving aside that one piece of it, why the Government of the United States of America would not argue that if there are credible allegations of war crimes – and there are certainly things which you, in your name, said were disgraceful and that the U.S. Government was appalled by them – why it should not support an independent investigation into what happened. MS. PSAKI: I think we’re not at that point right now, Arshad. And I certainly didn’t in any statement call anything a war crime. Obviously, there will be a great deal of time to determine what happened and what steps should be taken. That’s not our current focus at this moment. QUESTION: I guess that there is another route to the ICC, and that’s through the UN Security Council. Can we assume that the Administration would veto any – that the U.S. would veto any move at the Security Council to bring not just whatever Israel is alleged to do, but what Hamas is alleged to do as well, to – is that – would that be a fair assumption? MS. PSAKI: I’m just – there hasn’t even been a UN Security Council resolution proposed. QUESTION: Right. Well, the – so thus far -- MS. PSAKI: So I don’t think I’m going to go there at this point in time. QUESTION: Thus far in this conflict, which has now stopped because of the cease-fire, there has been a total of one vote on any kind of an investigation into it, and you guys voted against it because you said it was one-sided. MS. PSAKI: I understand. I’m aware. QUESTION: So – but you’re not saying that you’re opposed to any investigation at all, as long as it’s fair. MS. PSAKI: I have no comment on this, no evaluation of it. QUESTION: Okay. MS. PSAKI: We will determine at a later date what the appropriate steps are. New topic or – go ahead. state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/08/230249.htm#MIDDLEEASTPEACEPROCESS
Posted on: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:15:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015