Israel Matzav

ICC to pave way for a 'Palestinian state'?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The picture at the top is the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:49 PM