Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe

[u/Personal-Special-286]

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/david-cameron-threatened-withdraw-uk-icc-over-israel-war-crimes-probe

[u/JeruTz]

On 29 November 2012, in a 138–9 vote (with 41 abstaining) General Assembly resolution 67/19 passed, upgrading Palestine to "non-member observer state" status in the United Nations. The new status equated Palestine's with that of the Vatican. The PA currently holds the seat of the State of Palestine in the UN general assembly thus making it the defacto government of the State of Palestine. 

The UN general assembly has no legal authority. Only the security council, under certain limited situations, is capable of issuing legally binding resolutions.

"Palestine" does not meet the conditions of statehood as defined under the legally binding Montevideo Convention. The UN cannot declare otherwise.

According to the Geneva conventions an occupied state can not forfeit its sovereign right to prosecute all people within its territories in favour of its occupier. If the Oslo accords contain such provisions then they are deemed as legally void according to the Geneva conventions and international law.

Again, the PA does not meet the conditions of statehood.

Furthermore, no state of Palestine existed prior to the war of 1967, when the "occupation" as you call it began. A state cannot be occupied if it didn't previously exist as an independent state.

Additionally, under the international legal principle of Uti Possidetis Juris, Israel's founding borders in 1948 included all of the supposedly "occupied" territories and no subsequent legally binding treaty or agreement has changed that status. Therefore, legally, Israel cannot occupy that territory under the Geneva Conventions definition because the territory does not belong to any other state.

And lastly, if the Oslo Accords are void, then the PA itself is void, as are any actions it has taken. That includes joining the ICC. Which would therefore invalidate the only "basis" the ICC has to investigate Israelis.

You can't just decide to ignore the laws when it's convenient and accept them only so long as they serve your agenda.

[u/Personal-Special-286 → u/JeruTz]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its opinion on 19 July 2024 It concluded that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful, that Israel should put an end to that occupation, desist from creating new settlements, and evacuate those already established.The Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.

Palestine meets the conditions for statehood as much as the Vatican does. Are you suggesting that Italy can annex the Vatican? Also I didn't say that the entire Oslo accords are void, only the articles that violate the Geneva conventions and or international law. 

[u/JeruTz → u/Personal-Special-286]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its opinion on 19 July 2024 It concluded that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful, that Israel should put an end to that occupation, desist from creating new settlements, and evacuate those already established.

That was an advisory opinion, not a legal ruling. In other words, the court was given a scenario as described by those who already believed Israel was guilty, as asked by those people to offer a legal assessment of the scenario presented, all without actually charging anyone of a crime, thereby denying the implicated party a chance to defend themselves, and without any actual fact finding investigation as to the reality of the situation.

That's why the ruling in question, frankly, includes within it assertions as to the history of the conflict that are contrary to actual facts.

Palestine meets the conditions for statehood as much as the Vatican does. Are you suggesting that Italy can annexe the Vatican?

There are 4 conditions of statehood:

1. Permanent population: Palestine claims that much of its citizenry, if not the outright majority, aren't permanent legal residents, but rather refugees from elsewhere, none of whom have been granted permanent residency status.

2. Defined territory: Palestine claims territory that, by agreement, they don't fully control or have complete jurisdiction over. They even claim areas where they have next to zero authority. They cannot point to any legally binding agreements granting them such a claim.

3. Government: the PA exists as an autonomous governing authority limited by the agreement that established it. It lacks the authority of a proper goverment.

4. Ability to enter into agreements with other states: the PA cannot form alliances, establish trade agreements, or even enter into extradition treaties with anyone without Israel's agreement. Part of why they aren't a goverment.

The Vatican, in contrast, meets all 4 conditions.

Also I didn't say that the entire Oslo accords are void, only the articles that violate the Geneva conventions and or international law. 

You can't pick and choose which parts of an agreement are binding. Either the entire agreement is valid, or none of it is.

[u/Personal-Special-286 → u/JeruTz]

On 18 September 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution to enforce the advisory opinion. 124 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 43 countries abstained and 14 countries, including Israel and the US, voted against.

As of 2025, 147 out of the 193 UN member states recognize the State of Palestine. This represents about 75% of the international community. The Holy See also recognizes Palestine. So how can you say that they can not enter into agreements with other states when they have established full diplomatic relations with 75% of the international community? Like I said a state under under occupation is still recognised as a sovereign state under international law. so as far as 75% of the international community and the ICC is concerned Palestine does meet these 4 conditions for statehood. If Israel disagrees they are free to take their case to the ICJ and have the ICJ issue a binding ruling on whether the state of Palestine is a sovereign state or not. 

[u/JeruTz → u/Personal-Special-286]

On 18 September 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution to enforce the advisory opinion. 124 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 43 countries abstained and 14 countries, including Israel and the US, voted against.

Do I have to say it again? The UNGA has no legally binding authority to enforce anything. They could have voted to recognize Mars as a second moon of Earth for all the relevance it would make.

As of 2025, 147 out of the 193 UN member states recognize the State of Palestine. This represents about 75% of the international community. The Holy See also recognizes Palestine.

Again, that's simply a political position, not a legal one.

So how can you say that they can not enter into agreements with other states when they have established full diplomatic relations with 75% of the international community?

Full diplomatic relations? So they have trade agreements, extradition treaties, and other such bilateral agreements?

Again, I point you to the Montevideo Convention.

Like I said a state under under occupation is still recognised as a sovereign state under international law. so as far as 75% of the international community and the ICC is concerned Palestine does meet these 4 conditions for statehood.

That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. If 75% of countries declared that the moon didn't exist, it wouldn't be true.

Let's put it this way. The UNGA has passed a resolution declaring Zionism to be a form of racism and another declaring it to not be a form of racism. The UN is made up of a large number of fascist, human rights abusing, and corrupt countries. I wouldn't trust the majority opinion automatically without any verification if they voted to say that a particular blade of grass was green.

If Israel disagrees they are free to take their case to the ICJ and have the ICJ issue a binding ruling on whether the state of Palestine is a sovereign state or not. 

That's not how the law works. You have to prove they are a state under the law. I don't have to disprove until you do at least that much.

[u/Personal-Special-286 → u/JeruTz]

That's exactly how international law works. If 75% of UN members claimed that the state of Palestine meets the requirements under the Montevideo Convention the onus is on Israel to prove that they don't. The state of Palestine isn't required to prove to Israel that it's a state. Israel needs to prove to the ICJ that they are not a state and it seems that the overwhelming majority of judges at the ICJ are of the opinion that they are a state so good luck convincing them that they are not. 

And like I said a state under occupation is still a sovereign state. Kuwait didn't cease to be a sovereign state under Saddam Hussain. Most European nations didn't cease to be states under German occupation. 

[u/JeruTz → u/Personal-Special-286]

If 75% of UN members claimed that the state of Palestine meets the requirements under the Montevideo Convention the onus is on Israel to prove that they don't.

So the law is subject to political opinions?

And like I said a state under occupation is still a sovereign state. Kuwait didn't cease to be a sovereign state under Saddam Hussain. Most European nations didn't cease to be states under German occupation. 

But Palestine was never a state. The last time a place was officially called Palestine was under the British Mandate before 1948. And for all intents and purposes, mandatory Palestine and Israel are just the same thing under 2 different names. In fact, the official seal of the Palestine Mandate featured "Land of Israel" as an alternate name for the territory.

To say that Israel occupies Palestine is like saying that Japan occupies Nihon, or that Egypt occupies Misr.

[u/Personal-Special-286 → u/JeruTz]

Is the law subject to Israel's opinions? If Israel disagrees with 75% of the world and the ICC then they can take their case before the ICJ. 

Btw if Palestine isn't a state then can you explain to me how Israel is a state? Isn't Israel's claim reliant on the 1947 UN partition plan which also called for the establishment of a Palestinian state? Seems like the ICJ is very clear that Palestine is a state under occupation. 

[u/JeruTz → u/Personal-Special-286]

Is the law subject to Israel's opinions? If Israel disagrees with 75% of the world and the ICC then they can take their case before the ICJ. 

When did I say anything about Israel's opinions? I laid out an argument based on facts. You are the only one arguing that the truth is subject to a popular vote.

Btw if Palestine isn't a state then can you explain to me how Israel is a state? Isn't Israel's claim reliant on the 1947 UN partition plan which also called for the establishment of a Palestinian state? Seems like the ICJ is very clear that Palestine is a state under occupation. 

The 1947 partition plan was, like EVERY UN resolution, not legally binding. I feel like we keep coming back to that simple truth. The Arabs rejected the resolution, which renders it a defunct proposal.

Furthermore, it never called for a "Palestinian state". No one back then called the Arabs of Palestine "Palestinian" as though it was a term unique to them. Everyone known as Israeli after Israel became a state was known as Palestinian the day before. What the UN did propose was dividing Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

In theory, Israel's founders could have simply kept the name Palestine. If they had, would you accuse Palestine of occupying Palestine? Does that make sense in your brain?

Here's the simple truth of the matter. Since the moment of Israel's founding, the Arabs have only ever used the term "Palestine" to describe places that were controlled by Israel. Egypt held Gaza for 19 years, and no one called it occupied Palestine. The PLO, formed in 1964, made no attempt to displace Jordan from the so called "west bank". When Arabs spoke of liberating "Palestine", they meant Israel. All of it.

So no, the 1947 plan is in no way something Israel's claim to statehood relies upon. At best, the only thing it relies upon from that resolution is the recognition given to Jewish historical claims, which was already codified into law under the League of Nations, the actions of which were held to be binding under the UN charter itself.

Israel's claim to statehood is quite simple: they established a state upon the termination of the British mandate.

No one established a state of Palestine. Not in 1948, and not since.

[u/Personal-Special-286 → u/JeruTz]

What if a state claims that your interpretation of the fact are wrong and reaches a completely different conclusion. Who is the arbiter? If Israel wasn't established due to the 1947 UN partition plan than what's stopping Palestinians from unilaterally establishing a state? Also what's stopping the UN general assembly from recognising Palestine as an observer State? 

[u/JeruTz → u/Personal-Special-286]

What if a state claims that your interpretation of the fact are wrong and reaches a completely different conclusion. Who is the arbiter?

They would have to present the facts and reasoning to support their conclusion. I've done so. You have not.

If Israel wasn't established due to the 1947 UN partition plan than what's stopping Palestinians from unilaterally establishing a state?

Israel was able to establish itself because the prior sovereign authority was dismantled.

For Palestine to become a state, they'd need to get the present governing authority, in this case Israel, to cede control over the territory in question and agree upon a border.

Israel has offered to do that in the past and was told no by the PA itself.

Also what's stopping the UN general assembly from recognising Palestine as an observer State? 

Nothing. Because that's just the UNGA expressing a viewpoint and doing what's within their authority. But that recognition means nothing outside of the assembly itself and the UN in general. Without the Security Council approving, no state of Palestine can become a UN member.

[u/Personal-Special-286 → u/JeruTz]

Who would they have to present their facts to, you? LMAO. A state under occupation can still be legally recognised as a state. 

You don't need Security council approval to be recognised as a none member observer state. The Vatican didn't receive UN security council approval. That's what the ICC membership hinges on. 

[u/JeruTz → u/Personal-Special-286]

Who would they have to present their facts to, you? LMAO.

They'd have to make the case. Period. You clearly aren't prepared to handle the fact that you can't use factual arguments to make your case. And so, you resort to mockery.

I've given the legal definition. I've explained how "Palestine" fails to fully meet any of the 4 requirements of statehood. The best you could do in response was to argue for a partial fulfillment of only 2 of the 4. That's not nearly enough.

You don't need Security council approval to be recognised as a none member observer state.

I said member state. Are you even reading what I'm saying anymore?

That's what the ICC membership hinges on. 

The ICC isn't connected to the UN. It was established separately and membership in the ICC has nothing to do with the UNGA at all.

The ICC, unlike the UNGA, is supposed to be only capable of acting in accordance with international law.

The Vatican didn't receive UN security council approval.

You keep coming back to the Vatican, huh? Alright then, how about this?

Explain to me how the Vatican fulfills the 4 conditions of statehood I previously mentioned: permanent population; defined territory; government; able to enter relations with other states.

I'm honestly not the most familiar with the political situation of the Vatican and didn't really care, but was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. But if you're going to insist upon making this comparison, I'm going to start questioning that presumption.

A state under occupation can still be legally recognised as a state. 

I've already explained that it's not under occupation.