The Palestinian Authority wishes to sue Israel over Operation Cast Lead of nearly two years ago, in which Israel attacked Hamas-run Gaza in an attempt to stop incessant rocket and shellfire into Israeli territory. Only states are permitted to file suits in the international court, however. “If they win here,” one of Israel's advocates in the case, Dr. Dore Gold, told the New York Times, “the big story that will come out of this is that one of the main legal bodies in the international community, the International Criminal Court, acknowledges that the Palestinian Authority already constitutes a state.” On behalf of Israel were: Davenport’s argument focused on three points. First, he said, the Rome Treaty (which established the ICC) specifically states that only “states” can be heard in the Court – a precise formulation that was the result of a compromise following a hotly-contested debate on the matter – and that this is not subject to redefinition by the Court, as defendants deserve to know beforehand where the lines of criminal conduct and criminal jurisdiction are drawn. Secondly, Davenport argued, the consequences of accepting the PA’s position would have profound consequences on the Middle East peace process, would lead to a loss of confidence in the court for involving itself in primarily political matters, and could invite submissions to the Court from Chechnya, North and South Ossetia, Tibet and groups from Sudan, Iraqi Kurdistan and the Basque region. Finally, Davenport stated, the ICC need not worry about the consequences of not ruling on the matter, as the issue has been taken up independently of the ICC by Israel and the UN Security Council, and other countries can sue Israel in the ICC if they wish. Gold: Violation of Oslo A decision is not expected for at least several weeks.The idea, being discussed in both formal and informal forums across the West Bank, is to appeal to the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the signatories of the Geneva Conventions for opposition to Israeli settlements and occupation and ultimately a kind of global assertion of Palestinian statehood that will tie Israel’s hands.
Indeed, it would. And Secretary of State Clinton, at least, seems to recognize that.
The approach has taken on more weight as the stall in American-brokered peace talks lengthens over the issue of continued settlement building.
“We cannot go on this way,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a former peace negotiator who is a part of the inner ruling circle of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which oversees the Palestinian Authority. “The two-state solution is disappearing. If we cannot stop the settlements through the peace process, we have to go to the Security Council, the Human Rights Council and every international legal body.”
In an interview, she said that the P.L.O. was holding high-level discussions on these options this week.
Israeli officials reject the move as unacceptable and a violation of the 1993 Oslo accords that govern Israeli-Palestinian relations. It would also pre-empt any efforts by Israel to keep some settlements and negotiate modified borders. But the Israelis are worried. No government in the world supports their settlement policy, and they fear that a majority of countries, including some in Europe, would back the Palestinians.
The Israelis say that what is really going on is a Palestinian effort to secure a state without having to make the difficult decisions on the borders and settlements that negotiations would entail. They are pressing the Obama administration to take a firmer public stand against the new approach, but Washington has made no move to do so.
“A lot of members of the international community believe that since the Palestinians are the weaker party, if they get more support it will help them in the direct talks with us,” a senior Israeli official said, speaking on standard diplomatic ground rules of anonymity. “But it works in the opposite direction. This would kill a negotiated settlement.”Clinton, speaking at a banquet hosted by the American Task Force on Palestine, said that both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas were still committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But does the President feel the same way? Or will the 'fierce moral urgency' of establishing a 'Palestinian state' lead him to support or at least not oppose a 'Palestinian' end run?
"Negotiations are not easy, but they are absolutely necessary. It is always easier to defer decisions than it is to make them," Clinton said. "I cannot stand here today and tell you there is a magic formula that I have discovered that will break through the current impasse. But we are working every day to create the conditions for negotiations to continue and succeed," she added.
"I know there are those who think that if they wait, scheme or fight long enough, they can avoid compromising or negotiating. But I am here to say that that is not the case. That will only guarantee more suffering, more sorrow, and more victims," she said.
Clinton's assertion that peace talks were the only way to solve the region's problems appeared to come in response to a New York Times report which said the Palestinian Authority is looking for alternatives to the stalled negotiations.
Dr. Gold said that the PA’s bid for recognition via the ICC violates the interim Oslo accords, "which state that the sides will not initiate one-sided steps that will change the status quo until the final status agreements."The International Criminal Court in The Hague on Wednesday held a debate on whether or not to accept a declaration by the Palestinian Authority expressing its readiness to recognize ICC jurisdiction over “the territory of Palestine,” a decision which could impact heavily on the peace negotiations and the PA’s threat to unilaterally declare statehood.
Obviously, this should not be the way in which this kind of dispute ought to be determined. But that's no assurance that it won't be determined that way. Such a determination is more likely to lead to war than anything else.
According to Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and one of the participants in the debate, a decision by the court prosecutor to accept the declaration would have “huge implications. It amounts to an official request by the PA that the prosecutor confirm that it be considered a state.
“Even if the recognition will only apply to the ICC,” he said, “it will trigger a process of unilateralism which the PA is already considering which will undermine the peace process.”
Four experts on either side appeared before ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo and his staff. Those who spoke in favor the PA declaration were John Quigley, Chantal Meloni, Michael Kerney (on behalf of the Palestinian human rights organization Al- Haq) and Vera Gowlland-Debbas.
The speakers against the declaration were Gold, Malcolm Shaw, David Davenport and Jay Sekulow of the European Center for Law and Justice.
...
Apart from the key danger inherent in the PA request as alleged by Gold, the former Israeli ambassador to the UN also charged that Article 31 of the Second Interim Oslo Agreement prevented the PA – as well as Israel – from taking any unilateral action that would change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.
Gold added that the agreement “specifically stated that the PA would not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign affairs and therefore the declaration is yet another violation of the agreement which the Palestinians freely signed.”
Gold also argued that the language of the declaration did not define the territory of Palestine.
Furthermore, he told the prosecutor that there were competing claims regarding the sovereignty over the territory and that the ICC would be injecting itself into a territorial dispute by accepting the PA declaration. Israel, he pointed out, had applied its law to east Jerusalem since 1967 and has not waived its claim to change the 1967 boundaries, which, he added, were only armistice lines.
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Can the 'Palestinians' get a 'state' without 'negotiations'?
October 21, 2010
The 'Palestinians' are near 'despair' about the prospects of a negotiated deal with Israel - probably because in a truly negotiated deal, one side cannot dictate terms to the other. Therefore, the 'Palestinians' are trying to do an end run around the 'negotiations' reports the New York Times.
Hague Hears Arguments on PA State Status
by Hillel Fendel October 21, 2010
The International Criminal Court at the Hague heard arguments on Wednesday for and against granting the Palestinian Authority the rights of a state.
Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo of Argentina, who will make the final decision, heard four presentations in favor of accepting the PA’s suit, and four against. Speaking in favor of the PA were:
ICC to pave way for a 'Palestinian state'?
October 21, 2010
Former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold said on Wednesday that a decision by the International Criminal Court to accept a case dealing with Operation Cast Lead in Gaza could pave the way for the 'Palestinian' to attain a 'state' without negotiations.
Posts
