Israel is “engaging” with the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, according to a report Saturday by the Reuters news agency.

The discussions are a change from the standard Israeli policy of ignoring ICC inquiries or investigations into war crimes claims by the Palestinian Authority against the Jewish State.

This time the claims refer to the conflict with Israel dating back to the summer of 2014, ignited by the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli yeshiva teens by Hamas terrorists.

That attack eventually led to Operation Protective Edge, the 50-day war with Hamas and its associated terrorist allies – Iranian-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Fatah-linked Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades – in Gaza.

ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda told Reuters in a visit at a UN office in Geneva Thursday, “Israel has agreed to engage with my office and we are exchanging information… If a visit to the region is required, or when it’s required, we will also be making that request to visit,” she said.

Israel was accused of committing war crimes because it fired at sites from which Hamas launched rockets at Israeli civilians and soldiers.

But Hamas planted its rocket and mortar launchers among civilians – within the courtyards of schools and hospitals – and stored its ammunition in UNRWA schools.

The United Nations itself was shown the concrete evidence that its own school buildings and medical clinics were being used as weapons storage facilities by Hamas – but that did not stop the international body from accusing Israel of committing war crimes when the IDF attempted to destroy the source of the attacks on Israeli civilians.

A Spanish judge has found a legal loophole to warrant the arrests of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and other former Cabinet ministers, but an Israeli government official says it won’t happen.

The judge ruled they can be arrested for supposed war crimes in the IDF’s raid of the Mavi Mamara ship, one of six boats led by IHH terrorists trying to break the maritime embargo on the Hamas terrorist party in Gaza. Judge Jose de la Mata ordered police to keep track of the Israeli officials, who were sued by three Spaniards who were on the Mavi Mamara during the brutal attacks on Navy commandos who boarded the ship virtually unarmed. The Navy team eventually overpowered the attackers, 10 of whom were killed.

Judge de la Mata’s decision changed a former Spanish court ruling that complaints against Israel should be filed with the International Court of Justice (ICC) in Hague, which has taken no action. A United Nations committee ruled that the maritime embargo is legal but that Israel used “excessive force.”

The ruling is more of a psychological victory for the anti-Israel movement. A similar threat by Turkey last year to arrest him was dropped when the Prime Minister apologized to Turkey.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that the government is talking with Spain and that the judge’s decision probably will be shelved.

A 3-judge panel of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, in a 2-1 decision, on Thursday called on the court’s prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to reconsider her decision not to investigate the 2010 clash between Israeli soldiers and Turkish activists on a flotilla that was on its way to Gaza.

Last year, Bensouda refused a request, to launch a probe into the May 31, 2010 incident, submitted by the Union Comoros, an island nation in the Indian Ocean under whose flag the boarded flotilla boat, the Mavi Marmara, was sailing.

Eight Turks and one Turkish-American were killed and several other pro-Palestinian activists wounded by Israeli commandos, in a botched operation in which the Israelis climbed down a rope, one at a time, to receive severe beatings with metal rods from the activists.

At the time, Bensouda said there was a “reasonable basis to believe” war crimes had been committed on the Mavi Marmara, except she did not believe the case merited an ICC involvement. It appeared that in her view the ICC should use its authority to discern major international confrontations, rather than what amounts to a coast guard boarding gone awry.

On Thursday, the Judges rebuked Bensouda for making “material errors in her determination of the gravity” of the case.

Israel’s Turkel Commission probe of the incident, which, according to Ha’aretz, has met with the approval of the UN investigative committee (the Palmer Committee), found that:

a. The naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip – in view of the security circumstances and Israel’s efforts to comply with its humanitarian obligations – was legal pursuant to the rules of international law;

b. The actions carried out by Israel on May 31, 2010, to enforce the naval blockade had the regrettable consequences of the loss of human life and physical injuries. Nonetheless, and despite the limited number of uses of force for which we could not reach a conclusion, the actions taken were found to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law. The UN Palmer Committee Report on Gaza Flotilla Incident sided with the Israeli action. In its final summary, it stated:

The blockading power is entitled to board a neutral merchant vessel if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that it is breaching a blockade. The blockading power has the right to visit and search the vessel and to capture it if found in breach of a blockade.

Breach could occur outside the blockade zone, including on the high seas where there is evidence of the vessel’s intention. If there is clear resistance to the interception or capture, the blockading power may attack the vessel, after giving a prior warning.

The level of force used to enforce the above-mentioned rights must be proportionate; in particular, it must be limited to the level necessary to achieve the military objective.

So that, should the prosecutor decide to move ahead with the case, the entire debate would inevitably revolve around the proportionality of the IDF soldiers’ use of force.

Should make for an exciting kangaroo court.

JewishPress.com adds:

Judge Peter Kovacs has presented an opposing position to his peers in the ICC, which can be read here.

The key paragraph is the last paragraph where the judge wrote:

Indeed, it is likely that if an investigation was to be conducted most if not all of those acts will not qualify as war crimes within the meaning of article 8 of the Statute, either due to the difficulty in proving the mens rea of the potential suspect(s), or due to the existence of defences under articles 31 or 32 of the Statute (i.e., self-defence or justifiable error on the protected status of those on the Maria Marmara) with regard to the IDF soldiers who intervened in those difficult circumstances. It follows that the lack of prospect for any successful prosecution, together with the relatively low gravity of the alleged crimes makes it clear that the initiation of an investigation in the present situation is unwarranted.

On Friday, July 3, the United Nations Human Rights Council approved a Resolution condemning Israel for violating human rights during the summer of 2014 conflict with Gaza known as Operation Protective Edge.

The resolution was based on the investigation conducted by a committee appointed by the United Nations, and headed by Mary McGowan Davis. The UN’s original choice to head the committee, William Schabas, had to resign from that position when it was revealed that Schabas had been a paid advocate for the PLO. But even the report named both Israel and Hamas as potentially having committed war crimes.

Although purportedly based on the committee report, the resolution was drafted by Palestinian Arabs and Arab states, according to Haaretz.

When the report was released last week, it was blasted by both Israel and the United States.

The United States was the only “nay” vote against the Resolution. Of the 47 member nations in the UNHRC, 41 voted in favor of the Resolution. Germany, France and Ireland were among those voting in favor of the Resolution which condemned Israel – but was completely silent about Hamas – for its conduct during the conflict.

Although only the U.S. voted against the resolution, several states abstained. Those abstaining were India, Ethiopia, Paraguay, Macedonia and Kenya.

The vote took place Friday afternoon, July 3. That same day Israel was fired at from the Sinai, on the heels of vicious attacks against Egyptians by ISIS affiliates, while violent unrest roils the region. An ISIS affiliate claimed it was responsible for the rocket from Sinai.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had this to say about the vote:

“On the day on which Israel was fired at from Sinai, and at a time when ISIS is committing vicious terrorist attacks in Egypt, as Assad slaughters his people in Syria and as the number of arbitrary executions per annum climbs in Iran — the U.N. Human Rights Council decides to condemn the State of Israel for no fault of its own, for acting to defend itself from a murderous terrorist organization.

“Israel is a stable democracy in the Middle East that upholds equal rights for all its citizens and acts in accordance with international law.Those who fear to openly attack terrorism will – in the end – be attacked by terrorism.

“The council that has hitherto adopted more decisions against Israel than against all other countries cannot call itself a human rights council.The State of Israel will continue to defend its citizens against those who call for its destruction and take daily action to achieve this goal.”

The Resolution calls on all parties to comply with an investigation currently underway but the prosecutor’s office of the International Criminal Court to determine whether a case based on the allegations in the report and the UNHRC Resolution should proceed there.

A Saudi-led air strike has killed at least 40 refugees in Yemen and wounded 200 others, but the coalition says Houthi terrorists were using humans as shields to cover their attacks.

Sound familiar?

A war crime is not necessarily a war crime if anyone other than Israel is defending itself against terrorists who violate the Geneva Convention by using human beings, including children, as protective shields.

The Reuters news agency quoted an unidentified humanitarian worker as saying that the airstrike hit a truck carrying Houthi militiamen near the camp’s entrance.

Foreign media have reported that the Saudi-led attack on the Yemeni camp without the usual immediate denunciation by the United Nations when Israel bombs terrorist targets.

But leave it to the Arabs to keep “Israeli war crimes” in the headlines.

PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi, despite being one of the more intelligent members of the Palestinian Authority, accused Israel of war crimes on Monday because Jerusalem granted permission for the construction of 143 new apartments in Har Homa, located north of Bethlehem.

The project is nothing new, and the permission simply places a check mark next to another bureaucratic step in Israel’s convoluted process of building a house.

For Ashrawi, it was as if Israel had bombed a refugee camp. She said:

This latest development is an additional war crime as stipulated by the Rome Statute, and the occupation authorities will be held accountable by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other venues for its continued aggression on the lands and resources of the state of Palestine.

As of tomorrow, April Fool’s Day, the Palestinian Authority officially becomes a member of the ICC, where it can try to sue Israel for killing civilians whom Hamas used as human  shields in last summer’s war in Gaza,.

Even Amnesty, in a report last week, has admitted that Hamas and other terrorist groups violated humanitarian law by “storing rockets and other munitions in civilian buildings – including UN schools – and [that it] launched attacks or stored munitions very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.”

If the Palestinian Authority wants to go to the ICC to sue Israel for bomb including terrorists and killing civilians hidden by them, then Saudi Arabia should be next in line for the attack on Yemen’s refugee camps.

The old “double standard” could be raised, arguing that Israel is guilty because it is Israel and Saudi Arabia is innocent because it is Saudi Arabia, but that is becoming harder for foreign media to justify in the wake of continued Palestinian Authority incitement and praise for terror.

The Palestinian Authority has not reacted to the bombing of the Yemeni camp by the Saudi-led force, to which Ramallah has given its blessing, for what it is worth.

Mirabelle writing at Israellycool has pointed out something very important.

Mirabelle points out that Schabas claims he had no real financial gain from his work for the PLO, and therefore the charges of bias and conflict of interest are incorrect:

In his continuing effort to claim that he is just a victim of the Zionist cabal, Schabas points out that he received only $1300 in compensation for the work he did for the PLO. Therefore, he claims, he had no real financial motive for bias. This argument, however, reveals more about him that what he intends.

Mirabelle then provides a description of the work was that Schabas did for the PLO:

His description of the work that he did for the PLO is a seven-page legal opinion on issues involving Palestinian statehood and the International Criminal Court. This would likely involve hours of research on obscure issues about which Schabas had a rare expertise. If Schabas had charged a fair price for such work, the bill could have easily been ten times the amount charged, or more. He basically did the work for the PLO close to free of charge.

How many lawyers do you know would only charge $1300 for a 7 page brief in an incredibly esoteric area of legal expertise?

None that I can think of, unless they have personal interest or sympathy for the client or the cause.

A trial lawyer Schabas won’t be with holes in his argument so wide you can launch an entire battery of Hamas rockets through it.

It’s bad enough Schabas did work for the PLO and didn’t disclose that information, which is certainly enough reason to have disqualified him in the first place, but by not taking fair compensation for his efforts, he confirmed where his sympathies and bias lies – which means his entire “investigation” is tainted with that bias, as will be the final report, whether his name is on it or not.

Out of curiosity, what else Schabas will do for a mere $1300?

The letter sent by Israel to the UNHRC:

The anti-Israel is using the left-wing oriented Avaaz web platform to petition Facebook to ban promotions for homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria based on the claim they are “illegal.”

A Facebook representative told The Washington Post it is “investigating” the claim.

Several promotions on Facebook are sponsored by the Israeli branch of the American real estate company RE/MAX.

“For Palestinians, seeing settlement ads is a reminder of the pain and humiliation they have to endure as a result of these war crimes,” Fadi Quran, Avaaz’s campaign director in the West Bank, said in a statement.

Facebook’s policy prohibits advertising of illegal activity.

The question boils down to whether there is a case that it is illegal for Jews to live in Judea and Samaria as stated, but not decided in any court, by the United Nations and most of the international community.

A committee of three legal experts tabled a report to the Netanyahu government three years ago that not only are “settlements” legal but also that Jews have the right to live anywhere they want in all areas under Israel control.

Israel has passed legislation to put under its sovereignty some areas under Israeli control since the Six-Day War in 1967, namely the Golan Heights and half of Jerusalem, but the United Nations does not accept the Israeli law. Judea and Samaria remain under the authority of the military.

A Washington Post foreign affairs reporters’ article on the petition noted that Facebook previously has banned all advertisements that were in support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

If ads for Assad, guilty of war crimes, are banned by Facebook, the implicit and ludicrous conclusion is that promoting homes for Jews should be banned because the Palestinian Authority calls them “war crimes.”

That explains the sudden shift in the Palestinian Authority strategy to accuse Israel of war crimes in the International Criminal Court. Instead of trying to prove Israel committed war crimes against Hamas, whose inhumanity easily could be exposed , PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas is headed for the ICC with a sheaf of documents to claim that building homes for Jews are war crimes.

Supporters of the anti-Israeli petition wrote to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg:

We were shocked to see ads for illegal Israeli settlements on Facebook. The establishment and expansion of settlements is considered a war crime.

Settlements are a main cause of violence and discrimination in the region. Facebook’s advertising guidelines state that “Ads may not constitute, facilitate or promote illegal activity.” We therefore call upon you to ban all advertisements for settlement homes or settlement based products from showing on Facebook.”

Nearly 30,000 people have signed the petition, and that number is likely to grow geometrically following the free promotion for the petition provided by The Washington Post.