France to recognize Palestinian state at UN

[TastesLikeChicken]

This permits the recognised Palestinian Authority signatory status on the Rome Statute and thereby recognition and an avenue to pursue legal action against Israel in the International Criminal Court.


It can lead to a significant change upon Israel's international stature and therein is the reason why Israel is adamantly opposed. International support or complacency for criminal actions (extraterritorial expansion and displacing colonisation) can be greatly deterred upon a receiving a strong legal condemnation.

Except that Israel has withdrawn from the Rome Statute so there isn't much the UN can do in that respect, and acceding to the Rome Statute would put Palestine at risk for being liable to the ICC for its own behaviour.

 

[chucky2]

France supporting this isn't that big of a deal, it'd be expected really. Look at their Muslim population, it's a feel good bone thrown to them...

Chuck

 

[KAZANI]

Here's a radical idea:

You must be trippin man...for starters: WTF, Israel without Jerusalem?!?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You must be trippin man...for starters: WTF, Israel without Jerusalem?!?

Well thats a non starter.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You must be trippin man...for starters: WTF, Israel without Jerusalem?!?

You can <not> trust the UN to ensure Jerusalem is fully accessible for everyone. :whiste:

 

[NTMBK]

You must be trippin man...for starters: WTF, Israel without Jerusalem?!?

Jerusalem is a holy city to Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Giving the city to either a Muslim or Jewish nation is giving cause for grievance to whichever party loses out. An independent, non-national Jerusalem, with free access to all, is intended to prevent that. If neither side takes the holy city, then neither side feels slighted.

 

[Incorruptible]

France supporting this isn't that big of a deal, it'd be expected really. Look at their Muslim population, it's a feel good bone thrown to them...

Chuck

France shouldn't do this just to pander to them and this is just another problem with multiculturalism and letting in too many immigrants

 

[tommo123]

Jerusalem is a holy city to Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Giving the city to either a Muslim or Jewish nation is giving cause for grievance to whichever party loses out. An independent, non-national Jerusalem, with free access to all, is intended to prevent that. If neither side takes the holy city, then neither side feels slighted.

maybe do it like vatican city - minus the pope. tourism money to enter jerusalem (for anyone that doesn't live inside) would pay for a lot of upkeep and having jews, muslims and christians being in charge jointly (can't see it happening but... who knows) might work

 

[EagleKeeper]

Jerusalem is a holy city to Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Giving the city to either a Muslim or Jewish nation is giving cause for grievance to whichever party loses out. An independent, non-national Jerusalem, with free access to all, is intended to prevent that. If neither side takes the holy city, then neither side feels slighted.

Like the Jews had access to the city when it was under Arab/Palestinian control from '48 until '67.

At present, all religions have free access to it as an entity.

 

[Lemon law]

Like the Jews had access to the city when it was under Arab/Palestinian control from '48 until '67.

At present, all religions have free access to it as an entity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a totally false statement after 1967.

But that is part of the issue in tomorrow's upcoming UN general assembly vote in the in the UN general assembly vote for an upgrade in PA status to non member status. Because if it passes as it will, then the PA can sue Israeli in international courts for sneaking 200,000 illegal Israeli settlers into land Israel can not ever own in East Jerusalem.

But in the general assembly vote of Morrow, all nations will have to stand up and be counted.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Israel isn't going to be evicted from Jerusalem so this should be interesting.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because if it passes as it will, then the PA can sue Israeli in international courts for sneaking 200,000 illegal Israeli settlers into land Israel can not ever own in East Jerusalem.

No, they can't sue Israel. As I mentioned previously in this thread, Israel withdrew from the Rome Statute a while back and disavowed any legal obligations associated with it. The ICC can only investigate and prosecute treaty members. The only way that can be overridden is by Security Council resolution and we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[Whiskey16]

Except that Israel has withdrawn from the Rome Statute so there isn't much the UN can do in that respect, and acceding to the Rome Statute would put Palestine at risk for being liable to the ICC for its own behaviour.

No, you are mostly incorrect upon both counts:

• Upon joining the Rome Statute, Palestine, as territory of a member party, may pursue investigations against crimes committed upon its territory by any state or individual. Criminal acts may only be those henceforth from the Palestinian signatory date. The Palestinian Authority did not fail last Spring to bring an ICC investigation against Israel due to Israel no longer being a part to the Rome State, rather it failed as it was determined by the prosecutor that the PA did not meet the requirements as state per the Rome Statute. As voted by the United Nations General Assembly, that status will change tomorrow.
• Israel, as the USA and Sudan, are no longer party to the Rome Statue, and thereby may not directly approach the International Criminal Court to pursue action for any crimes committed upon its territory. Israel's only recourse is to obtain third party referral from the United Nations Security Council, as was done a few years ago for domestic investigations against the government of Sudan.

Here is the Wiki synopsis of the ICCs Territorial Jurisdiction:

During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States.[46] A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under the following limited circumstances:

• where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);
• where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
• where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.[21]

TastesLikeChicken, you are very wrong to surmise continued Israeli immunity from the ICC for its actions upon Palestinian Territory. The domestic borders of Israel are well defined, internationally recognised, and reaffirmed in multiple past UN Resolutions, particularly UNSC Resulution 242 (1967):

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Let me again clarify the legal realities for you, Tasteslikechicken,

• Jurisdiction of the Rome Statute is clearly defined by that of territory of its member parties.
• Legally, Israel is a state as defined by its 1967 borders, anything beyond that into Gaza and the West Bank is concisely recognised as external territory to that of Israel.
• If a signatory to the Rome Statute, a Palestinian Authority may request the ICC to investigate crimes within its mandate against any entity enacting those crimes within its territory, as territory of a member party.

This is precisely why Israel has been scrambling the past week with multiple states (Britain, France, Canada, the USA, etc.) to bring unjust pressure upon the Palestinian Authority to deny its ambition to join the Rome Statute.

Due to the forthcoming moral and legal challenges that will soon increase against Israel for its well recorded and continuing extra-territorial actions, the lebensraum addicted Israel is rightfully running scared.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No, you are mostly incorrect upon both counts:

• Upon joining the Rome Statute, Palestine, as territory of a member party, may pursue investigations against crimes committed upon its territory by any state or individual. Criminal acts may only be those henceforth from the Palestinian signatory date. The Palestinian Authority did not fail last Spring to bring an ICC investigation against Israel due to Israel no longer being a part to the Rome State, rather it failed as it was determined by the prosecutor that the PA did not meet the requirements as state per the Rome Statute. As voted by the United Nations General Assembly, that status will change tomorrow.
• Israel, as the USA and Sudan, are no longer party to the Rome Statue, and thereby may not directly approach the International Criminal Court to pursue action for any crimes committed upon its territory. Israel's only recourse is to obtain third party referral from the United Nations Security Council, as was done a few years ago for domestic investigations against the government of Sudan.

Here is the Wiki synopsis of the ICCs Territorial Jurisdiction:







TastesLikeChicken, you are very wrong to surmise continued Israeli immunity from the ICC for its actions upon Palestinian Territory. The domestic borders of Israel are well defined, internationally recognised, and reaffirmed in multiple past UN Resolutions, particularly UNSC Resulution 242 (1967):




Let me again clarify the legal realities for you, Tasteslikechicken,

• Jurisdiction of the Rome Statute is clearly defined by that of territory of its member parties.
• Legally, Israel is a state as defined by its 1967 borders, anything beyond that into Gaza and the West Bank is concisely recognised as external territory to that of Israel.
• If a signatory to the Rome Statute, a Palestinian Authority may request the ICC to investigate crimes within its mandate against any entity enacting those crimes within its territory, as territory of a member party.

This is precisely why Israel has been scrambling the past week with multiple states (Britain, France, Canada, the USA, etc.) to bring unjust pressure upon the Palestinian Authority to deny its ambition to join the Rome Statute.

Due to the forthcoming moral and legal challenges that will soon increase against Israel for its well recorded and continuing extra-territorial actions, the lebensraum addicted Israel is rightfully running scared.

Maybe you didn't read your own reply closely enough but your small wall of text didn't actually contain anything that contradicted what I posted previously. Palestine has no recourse against Israel under the Rome Statute.

Edit: Read Article 12 of the Rome Statute before trying to proceed.

 

[rommelrommel]

"Surrender"? What the hell is THAT meant to mean? Did France declare war on Palestine when I wasn't looking?

It's French foreign policy to surrender, just in case.

 

[Whiskey16]

The ICC cannot investigate Israel for crimes upon the Palestinian Territories not because Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, rather that currently as an unrecognised state, the Palestinian Authority may not appeal to the International Criminal Court for jurisdiction in its territory.

...your small wall of text didn't actually contain anything that contradicted what I posted previously. Palestine has no recourse against Israel under the Rome Statute.

I made an admirable effort to present a substantive post that precisely did all of that.

I supposed that I must go even further.

As you are losing this discussion, I strongly urge you to try harder and demonstrate to this forum a substantive source for your currently vacant and already nullified points. Please return with assurance that removes any cause for Israel's well recorded efforts to negate any ascension of the Palestinian Authority to the Rome Statute and an oath that it would not pursue any legal action in the ICC against Israel.

Surely if Israel is immune to ICC jurisdiction this would not be presented as a concern and condition for spoken support by Britain and the USA, eh?

William Hague says UK may abstain in Palestinian UN vote - BBC - 28 November 2012

He said the Palestinians must also agree not to seek membership of International Criminal Court (ICC), as any move to extend the jurisdiction of the court over the occupied territories could derail any chance of talks resuming.

Reaffirming that in attaining state status that the Palestinian Authority may appeal to the ICC for jurisdiction over Palestinian Territory thereby gaining a legal venue for criminal charges against Israel.

Edit: Read Article 12 of the Rome Statute before trying to proceed.

TastesLikeChicken, as per article 12, you are confusing Israel's passing on the the Rome Statute to that of the Palestinian's recognition as a state that has nullified it from being accepted into the auspices of the statute:

ICC: No Cast Lead probe as PA not a state - Jerusalem Post, 3 April 2012:

In a written ruling, prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said that the court cannot investigate the PA&#8217;s allegations because the court only has jurisdiction over recognized states.

The Office of the Prosecutor noted that while Palestine has been recognized as a state in bilateral relations by over 130 governments, by UN bodies and by other international organizations, the UN General Assembly has granted the Palestinian Authority the status of &#8220;observer&#8221; and not &#8220;non-member state.&#8221;

Tomorrow, the Palestinian Authority will become a non-member state.

TastesLikeChicken, let me reaffirm with a quote from the Jerusalem Post and quote from an ICC prosecutor that, regardless of Israel's status with the Rome Statute, that there can be an ability of the ICC to investigate Israel if there becomes a change in status of statehood for Palestine:

Significantly, Moreno-Ocampo&#8217;s office added that the ICC could consider the PA&#8217;s allegations of crimes committed on its territory, should the Security Council make a referral regarding the court&#8217;s jurisdiction over the PA, or if the Assembly of States Parties &#8220;resolve the legal issue relevant to an assessment of article 12 [of the Rome Statute],&#8221; referring to the clause that stipulates that a state can confer jurisdiction on the ICC by becoming a party to the statute or by making an ad hoc declaration accepting the court&#8217;s jurisdiction.

The Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that Israel welcomed Moreno-Ocampo&#8217;s decision...

No legal resolution may be necessary to Article 12, as tomorrow the Palestinian Authority will become a sufficient state to be recognised as per requirements of Article 12 in defining the jurisdiction of the ICC.

For acts upon the territory of a member state to the Rome Statute, regardless of Israel being a party or not, it and individuals may in fact become open to investigation and potential charges for their acts upon the territory of a member state.

TastesLikeChicken, you've got nothing.

 

[Abwx]

The domestic borders of Israel are well defined, internationally recognised, and reaffirmed in multiple past UN Resolutions, particularly UNSC Resulution 242 (1967):

• Legally, Israel is a state as defined by its 1967 borders, anything beyond that into Gaza and the West Bank is concisely recognised as external territory to that of Israel.

Actualy the only legal borders is the 1947 partition plan.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Like the Jews had access to the city when it was under Arab/Palestinian control from '48 until '67.

At present, all religions have free access to it as an entity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a totally false statement after 1967.

Where did I state anything about after 1967.

 

[SandEagle]

At present, all religions have free access to it as an entity.

http://www.imemc.org/article/62219

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfpfrJWPg

http://www.voanews.com/content/isra...o-jerusalem-for-ramadan-126825083/143358.html

 

[KAZANI]

Jerusalem is a holy city to Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Giving the city to either a Muslim or Jewish nation is giving cause for grievance to whichever party loses out. An independent, non-national Jerusalem, with free access to all, is intended to prevent that. If neither side takes the holy city, then neither side feels slighted.

To Judaism and Christianity it is the holiest place on earth, whereas to Islam it only ranks as third in importance. This is a HUGE difference and I am quite surprised at the puerile manner that people expect the Israeli regime to relinquish this strong playing card just like that.

 

[Whiskey16]

I am quite surprised at the puerile manner that people expect the Israeli regime to relinquish this strong playing card just like that.

Theology provides zero legal grounding for extraterritorial expansion.

That is a futile avenue for a claim.

Isreal may not claim all of Jerusalem for its own, just as any portion of the West Bank.

KAZANI, try again.

 

[KAZANI]

Theology provides zero legal grounding for extraterritorial expansion.

That is a futile avenue for a claim.

Isreal may not claim all of Jerusalem for its own, just as any portion of the West Bank.

KAZANI, try again.

You obviously don't understand a thing about geopolitics. Imperialism has always used religious fundamentalism as a tool for power consolidation.

 

[Incorruptible]

http://www.imemc.org/article/62219

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfpfrJWPg

http://www.voanews.com/content/isra...o-jerusalem-for-ramadan-126825083/143358.html

Oh look the links are from 2007 and 2011

 

[EagleKeeper]

At present, all religions have free access to it as an entity.

http://www.imemc.org/article/62219

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfpfrJWPg

http://www.voanews.com/content/isra...o-jerusalem-for-ramadan-126825083/143358.html

Certain areas are being restricted from each religion due to a religious holiday TO PREVENT VIOLENCE/CONFRONTATION.

The information above is what reading the actual articles that you linked to.
Both Palestinian religious leaders and Israeli IDF are stating the same.

Once the holiday is over; then normal access will be granted.

Your attempt at cherry picking back fired.

There are Muslims in Jerusalem
There are Christians in Jerusalem
There are Jews in Jerusalem.

Other religions are allowed to visit Jerusalem.

Show that such existed under Jordanian control of the city.

Oh look the links are from 2007 and 2011

Makes no difference; the concept is over his head.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The ICC cannot investigate Israel for crimes upon the Palestinian Territories not because Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, rather that currently as an unrecognised state, the Palestinian Authority may not appeal to the International Criminal Court for jurisdiction in its territory.

I made an admirable effort to present a substantive post that precisely did all of that.

I supposed that I must go even further.

As you are losing this discussion, I strongly urge you to try harder and demonstrate to this forum a substantive source for your currently vacant and already nullified points. Please return with assurance that removes any cause for Israel's well recorded efforts to negate any ascension of the Palestinian Authority to the Rome Statute and an oath that it would not pursue any legal action in the ICC against Israel.

Surely if Israel is immune to ICC jurisdiction this would not be presented as a concern and condition for spoken support by Britain and the USA, eh?

Reaffirming that in attaining state status that the Palestinian Authority may appeal to the ICC for jurisdiction over Palestinian Territory thereby gaining a legal venue for criminal charges against Israel.

TastesLikeChicken, as per article 12, you are confusing Israel's passing on the the Rome Statute to that of the Palestinian's recognition as a state that has nullified it from being accepted into the auspices of the statute:
Tomorrow, the Palestinian Authority will become a non-member state.

TastesLikeChicken, let me reaffirm with a quote from the Jerusalem Post and quote from an ICC prosecutor that, regardless of Israel's status with the Rome Statute, that there can be an ability of the ICC to investigate Israel if there becomes a change in status of statehood for Palestine:

No legal resolution may be necessary to Article 12, as tomorrow the Palestinian Authority will become a sufficient state to be recognised as per requirements of Article 12 in defining the jurisdiction of the ICC.

For acts upon the territory of a member state to the Rome Statute, regardless of Israel being a party or not, it and individuals may in fact become open to investigation and potential charges for their acts upon the territory of a member state.

TastesLikeChicken, you've got nothing.

Wrong. It appears you only looked around far enough to comfirm your own bias. So please allow me to further educate you:

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=291919

In essence, Moreno-Ocampo said that if the PA gets voted as a non-member state by the UN General Assembly in two weeks, it can try again to re-file the war crimes cases.

Some commentators have said that Moreno-Ocampo’s “advice” to the Palestinians was non-binding, that the only relevant part of his decision was his ruling that the PA was not a state and that without UN Security Council approval, a “political” vote alone from the UN General Assembly will leave the PA at the same dead end of still not being seen as a state by the ICC.

Besides statehood, there are still plenty of question marks and other obstacles.

In June 2012, Moreno-Ocampo finished his term as the first ICC prosecutor, replaced by Fatou Bensouda of Gambia, who was elected to a nine-year term.

While some felt that Moreno- Ocampo would have liked to have filed cases against Israel if his hands had not been tied, there is less known about Bensouda, and whether she would take the same stance as her predecessor in a relatively new office with little precedent for how to operate.

Also, in theory, if the Palestinians risk filing with the ICC, Israel (though currently not a party to the ICC) and others might also file against them for human rights violations.

Also, as a new institution, diplomatic pressure from the US (though not a party to the Rome Statute) and from some European states could delay or stop a case from moving forward, even if the initial jurisdictional problem was cured.

Further, Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, so it could be difficult or impossible to actually conduct a case against Israel’s citizens without its government’s cooperation.

Finally, it is far from clear that the ICC would make a final decision to indict any Israelis, in light of the fact that Israel has completed a process of investigations – including some prosecutions – of its soldiers’ actions in Operation Cast Lead.

Generally speaking, the ICC is only supposed to make a final decision to file indictments if the state of the accused citizens has done nothing to investigate the allegations.

Many argue that only credible investigations are required, not convictions.

Despite all of these question marks, there is no question that a vote recognizing Palestine as a non-member state in two weeks would start a “Round 2” on the war crimes allegations relating to Operation Cast Lead.

Essentially, Palestine can try their little end run once again but they are many hoops they have to jump through to even get to the point of indictment, and they also open themselves up to be tried for their own crimes and human rights abuses. Even if an indictment was handed down, which would appear unlikely, Israel can simply refuse to cooperate and there isn't a damn thing the UN can do since, as I informed you of previously, Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute.

See, it's not me who's got nothing.