Despite these circumstances that makes the ICC seem such an attractive option, a PA decision to take this path is far from obvious.
There is little doubt that the mid-February Netanyahu/Trump love fest at the White House further dampened already dim Palestinian hopes for a sustainable peace based on a political compromise. The biggest blow was Trump’s casual abandonment of the two-state solution coupled with an endorsement of a one-state outcome provided the parties agree to such an outcome, which as so expressed is a result almost impossible to suppose ever happening in the real world. Israel would never agree to a secular one-state that effectively abandons the Zionist insistence on a Jewish state with deep historical roots and biblical validation. The Palestinians would never agree to live in such a Jewish one-state that essentially abandoned their long struggle to achieve national self-determination, thereby gaining liberation from the last major remnant of the colonial era.
With geopolitical bravado suitable for the real estate magnate that he remains, despite the presidential trappings of his formal role, Trump also vaguely promised to negotiate a grand deal for the region that evidently reached beyond the contested territory of Palestine so long locked in conflict, and thus encompassed neighboring countries or possibly the whole region. It is easy to speculate that such murmurings by Trump were not welcomed in either Jordan or Egypt, long favored by rightest Israelis as dumping grounds for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Such added ‘political space’ is attractive from an Israeli perspective, both to ensure that Israel maintains a comfortable Jewish majority if the one-state solution were ever forcibly implemented by Israel. At the same time the prospect of population transfer would allow Israel to achieve a higher degree of racial purity, a feature of the dominant Zionist imaginary long before Israel became internationally recognized as a state.
An inflammatory part of this new political environment is the accelerated expansion of the existing network of unlawful Israeli settlements located in occupied Palestine. Although near unanimously condemned in Security Council Resolution 2334 last December, Israel responded by defiantly announcing approval of thousands more settlement units, endorsing plans for an entirely new settlement, and by way of a Knesset initiative provocatively legalized settlement ‘outposts,’ 50 of which are distributed throughout the West Bank in direct violation of even Israeli law. It is possible that the Israeli Supreme Court will heed anticipated judicial challenges to this latest move, and eventually void this Knesset law, but even if this happens, the passage of such a law sends a clear message of iron resolve by the political forces currently steering Israeli policy never to permit the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
In these circumstances, it becomes incumbent upon the Palestinian Authority to show the world that it is still alive, and it currently has few ways of doing this. Given these realities it would seem a no brainer for the PA to light up the skies of public awareness of the Palestinian plight by vigorously demanding justice at the International Criminal Court (ICC). After all there is a wide consensus on the global stage that all the settlements, and not just the outposts, are in violation of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These settlements have for decades served as a major obstacle in the search for a satisfactory diplomatic solution of the conflict. Of course, it would be naïve to expect Israel to comply with an adverse judgment of the ICC, or to participate in such a proceeding in ways other than by challenging the competence of the tribunal, but a favorable outcome would still be of great value for the Palestinians. It would cast Israel in an unfavorable light in relation to the UN, international law, and world public opinion, and undoubtedly encourage the further development of the already robust global solidarity movement.
Yet, despite these circumstances that makes the ICC seem such an attractive option, a PA decision to take this path is far from obvious. The former Foreign Minister of the PA and member of Fatah’s Central Committee, Nasser al-Kidwa, effectively dismissed the ICC option by calling it ‘complicated’ without any further explanation, leaving the impression that the costs of taking such a step were too high. However, the issue is not yet settled as mixed signals are emanating from Palestinian leadership circles. For instance, the PLO Secretary General, Saeb Erekat, in contrast to Kidwa, minced no words in his insistence that the ICC investigate “the colonial settlement regime.”
It seems useful to speculate on why there should be this ambivalence among Palestinian leaders. After all, international law, international public opinion, and even most European governments are all supportive of Palestinian claims with regard to the settlements. Israel remains more defiant than ever, and shows every sign of further expansion, possibly with an eye toward soon unilaterally declaring an end to the conflict, a move that Washington might find temporarily awkward, but in the end, acceptable. At the core of this debate about recourse to the ICC is the tricky question as to whether deference to the muscular vagaries of geopolitics serves Palestinian interests at this time.
Recourse to the ICC: Pros and Cons
The argument favoring recourse to the ICC is almost too obvious to put forward. It would back Israel into a corner. The Netanyahu government is certain to react with anger and concrete expressions of hostility to any such move by the PA. Such a reaction would be widely seen as a convincing confirmation of Israel’s vulnerability to any impartial test as to whether its settlement policies meet the minimum requirements of international law. And most importantly for the PA it would demonstrate that despite recent political disappointments the Ramallah leadership was prepared to embark upon a controversial course of action that displayed political courage, including a willingness to endure expected vindictive acts of retaliation.
Recourse to the ICC would play well with the Palestinian people, especially those living under occupation. They experience daily tensions with violent settler groups and see no future for themselves absent confrontation with Israel. If the PA chooses such a course, it would help restore support for the flagging claims of the PA to serve as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at the global level. This is turn could lead finally to durable arrangements of unity as between Hamas and Fatah, which would raise confidence levels that the Palestinians were prepared for this latest, difficult stage of their national movement.
The arguments against going to the ICC are somewhat more elusive. There is no doubt that Palestine, recognized by the UN as a state now enjoys the jurisdictional qualifications to participate in ICC proceedings. What is less clear is whether the ICC would be responsive, and able to circumvent technical obstacles, such as finding suitable Israeli defendants. During its 15 years of operation the ICC has been very reluctant to be pro-active except in Africa, and even there it has been recently stung by an intense pushback by African governments and the African Union. The ICC has been reluctant to stir up political opposition in the West, which would certainly occur as soon as the ICC launched a full investigation of Palestinian grievances against Israel.
There is also the reverse problem of ICC action that might disappoint the PA. To appear balanced, the ICC would probably extend its investigation to include allegations relating to indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza. It could then decide that a strong case of probable criminal responsibility attributable to Hamas existed, while allegations against Israel failed because of the inability to establish criminal intent. Although a setback for the PA, such an outcome at the ICC would be internationally criticized as contrary to reasonable interpretations of international law, and be widely regarded as a reflection of political pressures exerted by Washington.
Likely, the PA is most inhibited by the ‘lawfare’ campaign being waged by Israel and the United States. Already during the Obama presidency there was Congressional legislation terminating financial assistance to the PA in the event of any recourse to the ICC. Since Trump these warnings have escalated, including the total suspension of financial aid, the closing of the PLO offices in Washington, and threats to put the PLO and Fatah back on the US list of terrorist organizations. It is evident that the PA is taking these unseemly threats seriously.
There are also PA fears that any ICC initiative would induce Israel to move more quickly toward closure with respect to the underlying conflict, annexing most or all of the West Bank. Such a reaction would both be in keeping with Israel’s tendency to respond disproportionately to any formal action directed at the legality of its policies and practices. Israel is particularly sensitive about war crimes charges, and vows extraordinary measures should any of its citizens be so charged. Now that Netanyahu can count on unconditional support in the White House and the US Congress it would not be surprising to see him use the occasion of an ICC initiative to proclaim Israeli sovereignty over the whole of historic Palestine.
Conclusion
In light of the above, it seems almost certain that the PA will not act take advantage of the ICC option any time soon. The PA is likely to adopt a posture of neither/nor; that is, neither explicitly ruling out recourse to the ICC, nor activating the option. This reflects the reality that the PA is caught between the rock of US/Israel bullying tactics and the hard place of an increasingly restive Palestinian population, being acutely reminded of its ordeal by the grim realization that 2017 is the 50th anniversary of the Israeli occupation.
The United States posture, although somewhat more belligerently pro-Israel as a result of the Trump presidency, is really nothing new except in style. Even during the Obama presidency the US opposed every attempt by the PA to rely on international law or the UN to advance its national struggle. Instead of welcoming the use of law rather than weapons, the US Government castigated efforts of Palestine to gain membership in the UN System or to seek even symbolic relief for its grievances in international venues. This turn against international law, as well as against the UN, is clearly a signature issue for the Trump presidency, and not just in relation to Palestine, and this is not good news for the world.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog. A version was also previously published in the Middle East Eye.
Overall, Palestine should seek immediate freedom and compensation for Israeli colonial Apartheid, land and resource rights based on its legal 1967 borders as well as financial payments for Israeli terrorism aided by America and Western allies.
Israel must pay and pay and pay for its crimes of Genocide and removal beginning in 1917-1922 and 1948; Colonial Apartheid, resource theft, criminal terrorism and International War Crimes against Palestinian families and children.
(1) Yes file with the ICC, for Israeli Colonial Apartheid by the state and decades of Jewish settler terrorism. Add violations of international law and War-Crimes against native populations in areas A, B, C, East Jerusalem and Gaza as defined in the 1991-1993/2001 Oslo Accords.
(2) Yes file with the ICJ, for violations of international laws. treaties and norms as well as UN Security Council Resolutions concerning Palestinian Lands.
(3) And yes, as a UN Member Sate, file with the ISB… Palestinians should seek respirations and trillions of dollars in financial compensation for Israeli Terrorist Colonial Apartheid; Israeli and Jewish Settler-Agents Provocateur incitement of Palestinian Protests and Violence; as well as Jewish Settler and Israeli war-crimes against Palestinian noncombatant women and children, over decades.
Palestinians must file their complaints with, The UN International Criminal Court, The UN International Court of Justice and Also The UN Bank for International Settlements to cover trillions of US dollars in legitimate economic respirations accumulated since 1917 British- Rothschild Jewish claims on Palestine — and 1948 Israeli and Western Christian Evangelical Zionist claims, removal and genocide against native Palestine populations.
Jewish and Christian Bibles are lies, without rock-solid, archeological and social anthropological evidence and merit. The religious term ‘FAITH’ means — Believing those things which are not, as if they are — has no legal standing.
The real threat to peace in Israel is not Palestine but Rothschild Zionist Israel Since 1948:
(1) Zionists have continuously and illegally expanded Israel’s territory by stealing land, eradicating villages and committing genocide against a sovereign people (the Palestinians);
(2) During the 1950s Cold War, Israel makes a secret arrangement with the UK and France and then invades the Suez Canal. The Soviets threaten to intervene on the side of Egypt. The US president Eisenhower, trying to avoid a US-Russia nuclear showdown, demands the Israeli-spearheaded invasion of Sinai be stopped. A ceasefire is declared, the British and French depart, but the Israelis drag their heels. Eisenhower gives then Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion an ultimatum (a threat to cut off all US aid). In March 1957 the Israelis finally withdraw;
(3) Zionists dislike and challenges by President Kennedy for pushing them hard to disclose their secret criminal nuclear program at Dimona;
(4) Israel initiates attacks against both Egypt and Syria in the 6 Day War, where it captured territory such as the Golan Heights which it has not returned to Syria, to this day.
(5) During this 6 Day War, Israel criminally attacks the USS Liberty in 1967 (even though the US and Israel were supposed allies at the time) with unmarked aircraft;
(6) Israel attacks Lebanon in 1982. Israel attempts to kill as many PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) fighters as possible. Israel uses its long-running trick of claiming that its offensive aggression are “defense”. Then US president Reagan says, “When PLO sniper fire is followed by fourteen hours of Israeli bombardment that is stretching the definition of defensive action too far.”
(7) Starting in 1979, Israel has consistently lied and exaggerated publically about the threat of the Iranian nuclear programs intentions. Meanwhile Rothschild Israel had already secretly created and harbored a nuclear arsenal of its own. Iran is a carefully monitored member of the UN-NNPT Treaty. Israel has never been inspected by the UN-IAEA and is not a signatory of the UN Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (UN-NNPT).