Could a Palestinian state bring Israel before ICC?

THE HAGUE: If Palestine achieves UN “non-member observer status”, it could ask the International Criminal Court to investigate crimes committed during the decades-long Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Based in The Hague, the ICC can prosecute those guilty of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed since July 1, 2002, when its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, came into force.
So far it has been ratified by 121 countries, but not Israel — nor the United States, China and Russia.
Only individuals, not states, can be prosecuted before the ICC. The court can only pursue an individual if crimes were committed on a state party’s territory, or by a citizen of a state party.
A state party may refer crimes within the court’s jurisdiction to the prosecutor for investigation.
Cases may also be referred by the UN Security Council, as was the case in Libya last year, or the prosecutor can initiate his own investigations with permission from the judges.
But a Security Council referral is a remote possibility as the United States, Israel’s staunchest ally, is a permanent member of the council and frequently uses its veto right in Israel’s defense.
Meanwhile, a resolution that would change the Palestinian Authority’s UN observer status from “entity” to “non-member state,” like the Vatican, is expected to pass easily in the 193-nation General Assembly.
Despite its fierce opposition, Israel seems concerned not to find itself diplomatically isolated. It has recently toned down threats of retaliation in the face of wide international support for the initiative, notably among its European allies.
“The decision at the United Nations will change nothing on the ground,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in Jerusalem. “It will not advance the establishment of a Palestinian state. It will delay it further.”
Granting Palestinians the title of “non-member observer state” falls short of full UN membership — something the Palestinians failed to achieve last year. But it would allow them access to the International Criminal Court and some other international bodies, should they choose to join them.
Hanan Ashrawi, a top Palestinian Liberation Organization official, told a news conference in Ramallah that “the Palestinians can’t be blackmailed all the time with money.”
“If Israel wants to destabilize the whole region, it can,” she said. “We are talking to the Arab world about their support, if Israel responds with financial measures, and the EU has indicated they will not stop their support to us.”
With strong support from the developing world that makes up the majority of UN members, the resolution is virtually assured of securing more than the requisite simple majority. Palestinian officials hope for more than 130 yes votes.
Austria, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland all pledged to support the Palestinian resolution. Britain said it was prepared to vote yes, but only if the Palestinians fulfilled certain conditions.
Diplomats said the Czech Republic was expected to vote against the move, potentially dashing European hopes to avoid a three-way split in the vote. Germany and the Netherlands said they planned to abstain, like Estonia and Lithuania. Ashrawi said the positive responses from European states were encouraging and sent a message of hope to all Palestinians.
“This constitutes a historical turning point and opportunity for the world to rectify a grave historical injustice that the Palestinians have undergone since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948,” she said.
A strong backing from European nations could make it awkward for Israel to implement harsh retaliatory measures. But Israel’s reaction might not be so measured if the Palestinians seek ICC action against Israel on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity or other crimes the court would have jurisdiction over.
One Western diplomat said the Palestinian move was almost an insult to recently re-elected US President Barack Obama.
“It’s not the best way to convince Mr. Obama to have a more positive approach toward the peace process,” said the diplomat, who was planning to vote for the resolution. “Three weeks after his election, it’s basically a slap in the face.”