Panel at George Mason on the ICC and Palestine

by Kevin Jon Heller

I will be participating next week in what should be an excellent event at George Mason University on the ICC and Palestine. The other participants are all excellent — David Luban, Meg DeGuzman, George Bisharat, and the organizer, Noura Erakat. Here is the flyer:

FINALFLYEROCTOBERPANELJpeg

I hope at least some Opinio Juris readers will be able to attend and hear my dire prognostications in person. (If you do, make sure to come say hello.) The event will be live-streamed for those that do not live nearby.

http://opiniojuris.org/2014/10/14/panel-george-mason-icc-palestine/

15 Responses

  1. Dear Kevin, how can we get to the live-streamed link?

  2. Mugisho,

    To be honest, I’m not sure. Here is the GMU page announcing the event; I assume it will have the link to the live stream:

    http://middleeast.gmu.edu/events/4643

  3. Thanks Kevin

  4. And did did not invite GMU’s own distinguished scholar Prof. Jeremy Rabkin! A shame, would have been a better panel.

  5. Rabkin? probably intentional

  6. This will clearly be an anti-Israel fest and an academic joke. Besides the lack of balance in the panelists the intro describes the injury count on both sides which has the absurd implication that because Israel was highly successful in minimizing its casualties it is somehow “to blame”. The intro on the flyer demonstrates manifestly the nature of the conference and its agenda. The aggressors were hamas and the civilian hits in gaza were both proximately and “but/for” caused by the firing of rockets into Israel.
    Dont fire rockets – no retaliation. Fire rockets – you deserve what you receive. No nation would allow another actor to fire rockets and not hit back.

  7. Need I say more – from the program announcement:

    “Join the Middle East Studies Program, the Trans-Arab Research Institute, Arab Studies Institute, New Century College, and Global Programs for a panel discussion on Israel’s offensive, Operation Protective Edge, against the Gaza Strip.”

    What a shock, the sponsors are fanatically anti-Israeli and no mention whatsoever of the fact that hamas was firing rockets into Israel. Yeh, this will be balanced. Kevin, this is low even for you.

  8. Thanks for the predictable attack on the panel. I’m impressed by your divination skill — able to know exactly what will be said without even having to listen.

  9. I particularly appreciate the attack because it indicates how increasingly desperate Israel apologists are to regain control of a narrative that, for the first time in a great while, they no longer control. Anyone who reads the poster will note that it references both the number of Israelis killed in the conflict and the potential commission of war crimes by both sides. But, of course, the sponsors and panel are “fanatically anti-Israel.”

    Someone appears to be fanatic — but it’s not the panel or sponsors.

  10. .kevin you are grasping

  11. Jon

    Thank you for pointing these out. It is shocking that so many biased parties could even attempt to portray a balanced debate. The fact it clearly states “Israel’s offensive, Operation Protective Edge, against the Gaza Strip” is indicative of the oft one sided discussions that take place.

    Kevin

    I dont think any balaced neutral observer would disagree with the points Jon is making. If it were not for Hamas firing rockets at indiscriminately at Israeli towns/cities there would have been no need for OPE.

    Describing him as an “Israel apologist” only brings further attention to the bias that exists in some of these forums and only contributes to the arguments Jon is making.You comments can be simply translated into the following

    – I do not approve of any narrative contrary to one which views Israel as an aggressor and therefore will brush off such narratives as those of a “desparate Israel apologist”.

    It would be nice to have seen a more constructed rebuttal of Jon’s claims. Possibly by refering simply to the websites of the sponsors and parties involved and whether they in fact do show a history of balanced views and activities.

    Eugene

    I am interested as to why you believe Rabkin was not invtieded to attend. Could this be another example of Israeli detractors denying those with a more supportive view of Israel the chance to experess their alternative narrative. Similar to what Kevin seems to be doing with Jon’s opinion of the sponsors?

  12. Sorry, but my comment is spot-on. Anyone who condemns a panel on the basis of (1) a poster that mentions victims and crimes by both sides, (2) a line-up of respected scholars (myself excepted) without the slightest idea of what they might say, and (3) sponsoring organisations with scary words like “Arab” in the title, can only be described as an Israel apologist. Especially in light of silly claims like the use of the word “offensive” somehow indicates anti-Israel bias. (Though, to be fair, the commenters above would condemn any description other than “war of self-defence” as anti-Israel.)

    As for Rabkin, why would the organisers have invited him? The panel is not discussing the merits of Operation Protective Edge; it is discussing the implications of Palestine’s choice to accede — or not accede — to the Rome Statute. (And not that the previous commenters care, but that issue is one over which the panelists disagree significantly.) What would a regular contributor to the Weekly Standard possibly add to that discussion, other than to argue that Israel has done nothing wrong and all the fault lies with Palestine?

  13. The program begins

    “Join the Middle East Studies Program, the Trans-Arab Research Institute, Arab Studies Institute, New Century College, and Global Programs for a panel discussion on Israel’s offensive, Operation Protective Edge, against the Gaza Strip.”

    As Jon has already pointed out. This clearly lays the focus of this panel discussion out in plain English for all to see.

    Shame really.

  14. Headline, Jerusalem Post, July 17: “IDF Starts Gaza Ground Offensive.”

    Why is the Jerusalem Post anti-Semitic? Why does it hate Israel?

  15. @ Jon “..the intro describes the injury count on both sides which has the absurd implication that because Israel was highly successful in minimizing its casualties it is somehow “to blame””

    You’re obviously seeing things Jon

    In July and August, hostilities in the Gaza Strip left 2,131
    Palestinians and 71 Israelis dead, including 501 Palestinian
    children and one Israeli child. Of Gaza’s 1.8 million residents,
    475,000 are living in temporary shelters or with other families
    because their homes have been damaged. The extent of
    destruction has raised questions around culpability for war
    crimes on all sides of the conflict … ……. … investigate war crimes conducted in Palestinian territory, This
    investigation would bring Israel and Palestine under scrutiny

    “The intro on the flyer demonstrates manifestly the nature of the conference and its agenda” Indeed, BOTH sides…

    “No nation would allow another actor to fire rockets and not hit back”

    No nation would allow illegal settlements, in territory illegally acquired by war and illegally annexed or never annexed at all!

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.