In recent years, the Palestinian Authority has tried to have its accusations of Israeli war crimes investigated by the International Criminal Court, only to see its request go nowhere because the Palestinian territories were not recognized as a state.
[h=6]Louis Lanzano/Associated Press[/h]The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, at front, left his hotel in New York on Friday, the day after the United Nations General Assembly made Palestine a nonmember observer state.
But now the court says it will take a fresh look at the issue after the United Nations General Assembly voted to enhance the standing of the Palestinians, conferring on them the word “state” as part of their new status as nonmember observers. On Friday, a spokeswoman for the prosecutors office said it “will consider the implications of this resolution.”
Less than a day after the United Nations vote, which many Palestinians cheered as a historical turning point and its opponents derided as an obstacle to peace and statehood, Palestinian officials said they hoped the distinction gave them enough momentum to be able to return to the international court at some time in the future — if that is what they decide to do.
“Of course it is enough,” Rabii al-Hantouli, a spokesman for the Palestinian Mission at the United Nations, said Friday. “There are some technicalities and procedures. In 2009, we approached the I.C.C., and the only thing pending was they wanted a legal document saying Palestine was a state. And now they have it.”
But as history has so often shown in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a lot happens, but very little may change. Judging by some of the expectations after the vote, this could be one of those cases.
In his speech to the General Assembly, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, said that the new status would not enable the Palestinian Authority to join international treaties, organizations or conferences as a state and does “not confer statehood on the Palestinian Authority, which clearly fails to meet the criteria for statehood.”
Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador, who along with eight other countries’ representatives voted against the resolution with Israel, said bluntly, “This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state.”
But Palestinians are throwing a great deal of weight behind the new nomenclature, which does not make them full United Nations members but is an upgrade from their former status as an observer entity.
“That is what changed everything,” said Yousef Zeidan, an adviser on legal matters to the Palestine Mission at the United Nations.
Still, he made clear that the Palestinian Authority had not made any decisions about what it would do at the court. “Right now we are not asking for anything,” he added, referring to international treaties or conventions.
In 2009, the Palestinian Authority pressed the court to investigate accusations of war crimes committed by Israeli commanders during the war in Gaza against Hamas militants at that time, including assertions that Israel had singled out civilians and illegally used weapons like white phosphorus.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the I.C.C. prosecutor at the time, initially said he lacked the legal basis to investigate, but he appeared more open to consider the claim after the Palestinian Authority signed a commitment recognizing the court’s jurisdiction.
But in April, he turned down the Palestinian request, saying his office had no jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories until the United Nations, or nations that have joined the court, recognized them as a state. The court has a new chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda.
Some analysts said that by accepting the jurisdiction of the court, the Palestinians could also open themselves up to prosecution for war crimes, including Hamas’s attacks on Israeli civilians.
“Maybe the Palestinians will not want there to be a case against Palestinians,” said Aeyal Gross, a law professor at Tel Aviv University.
They also question whether the Palestinian Authority can bring a case involving jurisdiction in the Gaza Strip, which Hamas, and not President Mahmoud Abbas, controls. That raises questions on whether Gaza even forms a state along with the West Bank. “It is a double-edged sword for them,” said Srini Sitaraman, an international law professor at Clark University in Massachusetts.
Mr. Zeidan, the legal adviser, said that after the vote, the Palestinians could renew their 2009 request or seek membership in the court. But he said no decision had been made. “The treaty is open to all states,” he said.
Marlise Simons contributed reporting from Paris.
[h=6]Louis Lanzano/Associated Press[/h]The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, at front, left his hotel in New York on Friday, the day after the United Nations General Assembly made Palestine a nonmember observer state.
But now the court says it will take a fresh look at the issue after the United Nations General Assembly voted to enhance the standing of the Palestinians, conferring on them the word “state” as part of their new status as nonmember observers. On Friday, a spokeswoman for the prosecutors office said it “will consider the implications of this resolution.”
Less than a day after the United Nations vote, which many Palestinians cheered as a historical turning point and its opponents derided as an obstacle to peace and statehood, Palestinian officials said they hoped the distinction gave them enough momentum to be able to return to the international court at some time in the future — if that is what they decide to do.
“Of course it is enough,” Rabii al-Hantouli, a spokesman for the Palestinian Mission at the United Nations, said Friday. “There are some technicalities and procedures. In 2009, we approached the I.C.C., and the only thing pending was they wanted a legal document saying Palestine was a state. And now they have it.”
But as history has so often shown in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a lot happens, but very little may change. Judging by some of the expectations after the vote, this could be one of those cases.
In his speech to the General Assembly, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, said that the new status would not enable the Palestinian Authority to join international treaties, organizations or conferences as a state and does “not confer statehood on the Palestinian Authority, which clearly fails to meet the criteria for statehood.”
Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador, who along with eight other countries’ representatives voted against the resolution with Israel, said bluntly, “This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state.”
But Palestinians are throwing a great deal of weight behind the new nomenclature, which does not make them full United Nations members but is an upgrade from their former status as an observer entity.
“That is what changed everything,” said Yousef Zeidan, an adviser on legal matters to the Palestine Mission at the United Nations.
Still, he made clear that the Palestinian Authority had not made any decisions about what it would do at the court. “Right now we are not asking for anything,” he added, referring to international treaties or conventions.
In 2009, the Palestinian Authority pressed the court to investigate accusations of war crimes committed by Israeli commanders during the war in Gaza against Hamas militants at that time, including assertions that Israel had singled out civilians and illegally used weapons like white phosphorus.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the I.C.C. prosecutor at the time, initially said he lacked the legal basis to investigate, but he appeared more open to consider the claim after the Palestinian Authority signed a commitment recognizing the court’s jurisdiction.
But in April, he turned down the Palestinian request, saying his office had no jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories until the United Nations, or nations that have joined the court, recognized them as a state. The court has a new chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda.
Some analysts said that by accepting the jurisdiction of the court, the Palestinians could also open themselves up to prosecution for war crimes, including Hamas’s attacks on Israeli civilians.
“Maybe the Palestinians will not want there to be a case against Palestinians,” said Aeyal Gross, a law professor at Tel Aviv University.
They also question whether the Palestinian Authority can bring a case involving jurisdiction in the Gaza Strip, which Hamas, and not President Mahmoud Abbas, controls. That raises questions on whether Gaza even forms a state along with the West Bank. “It is a double-edged sword for them,” said Srini Sitaraman, an international law professor at Clark University in Massachusetts.
Mr. Zeidan, the legal adviser, said that after the vote, the Palestinians could renew their 2009 request or seek membership in the court. But he said no decision had been made. “The treaty is open to all states,” he said.
Marlise Simons contributed reporting from Paris.