Should the Palestinians Seek Justice NOW at the International Criminal Court?

23 Feb

Should the Palestinians Seek Justice NOW at the International Criminal Court?


[Prefatory Note: This post is a modified version of an opinion piece published by Middle East Eye on February 20, 2017. It calls particular attention to the punitive treatment of recourse to international law tribunals to address perceived grievances that is meant to discourage Palestinians from seeking relief at the International Criminal Court. On one level this form of lawfare underscores the weakness and vulnerability of Israel when the conflict is shifted from the battlefield to the courtroom. On another level it is meant to deny the Palestinian people, and their representatives, all legitimate amd moderate options by which to pursue their claims and address their grievances. It signals that the ‘enforcers’ of world order repudiate their own accountability with regard to the rule of law, while purporting to hold others to account, for instance, by criminalizing all forms of violent resistance to prolonged and abusive occupation as ‘terrorism.’]



Weakening the Two-State Consensus

 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 criminal 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.




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.

6 Responses to “Should the Palestinians Seek Justice NOW at the International Criminal Court?”

  1. sudhan February 23, 2017 at 11:18 am #

    In fact, Israeli leaders have toyed with the idea of the two-state as a camouflage to carry on their expansion in the occupied Palestine. It is ironical that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, especially Mahmoud Abbas, have bought this Zionist lie and have deceived their own people into believing that the Israeli rulers were sincere in seeking a two-state solution. The whole thing about the peace negotiations was a trick and still is if anyone still gives any credence to it.

  2. Beau Oolayforos February 23, 2017 at 6:04 pm #

    Dear Professor Falk,

    Your comment about Jordan and Egypt being dumping grounds for Palestinians finds a parallel in Trump’s idea of dumping Mexicans, along with various other migrants, into border towns. The minds of these fascist clowns run in the same gutter.

    You also mention the real-estate magnate who now wears presidential trappings. I haven’t heard The Peter Principle mentioned yet – it enjoyed such a vogue, awhile back, and certainly applies in Trump’s case.

    • Gene Schulman February 24, 2017 at 9:19 am #

      I don’t think Laurence Peter had anomalies like Trump in mind when he wrote his famous book. Trump was never promoted except in his own mind – a self promoter bar none.

      José Ortega y Gasset suggested that: “All public employees should be demoted to their immediately lower level, as they have been promoted until turning incompetent”.[5] Ortega died in 1955, about 14 years before Peter published The Peter Principle.

  3. Gene Schulman February 25, 2017 at 1:02 am #

    I think this interview is worth sharing with readers of this blog:

  4. Mike 71 March 3, 2017 at 7:38 am #

    Result to the ICC is a useless and futile gesture which evades the real issue: Palestinian refusal to engage in direct negotiations with Israel to resolve the conflict and establish “secure and recognized boundaries” for both parties as specified under UNSCR 242 and 338. Submission to the jurisdiction of the ICC would subject Palestinians to Israeli counter-claims for terrorist actions and could result in dismissal of Palestinian claims for lack of “clean hands.” The ICC is a “Paper Tiger” having no legitimacy neither among “non-members,” nor among its signatories, particularly the nations of Africa. South Africa deliberately ignored an arrest warrant for Sudan’s Omar Bashir, wanted on genocide charges, allowing him to evade arrest and justice. Since then, African nations are increasingly dropping out of the ICC.

    The “two-state consensus” is undermined by consistent Palestinian refusal to engage in direct negotiations with Israel, as such negotiations would directly contravene Articles 6, 9, 15, 19, 20 and 21 of the Palestinian National Covenant.
    Direct negotiations also directly contravene Articles 13 and 32 of the Hamas Covenant.
    Both Palestinian main factions, per the above documents, oppose compromise.

    Compromise based on direct negotiations would require abandonment of outstanding claims and the state of belligerency against Israel. Those negotiations would be between Palestinians and Israel, not with President Trump, who has pledged to accept the outcome of those negotiations, whatever it may be. Negotiations would require the recognition of the State of Israel and the right to determine the character of the state as a Jewish State based on the 80% majority of its population, in exchange for Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state and the right of Palestinians to determine the character of their state, based on population, or other basis. The population of the Peoples’ Republic of China is 92% Han Chinese, yet no one would question the right of China to declare itself a “Han State,” if it chose to do so!

    Prime Minister Netanyahu recently asked whether Mr. Abbas was “an Arafat, or a Sadat?” Given Abbas’ vacillating response to a serious Israeli offer to end the conflict in 2008 by the Olmert government, he seems determined to follow the failure of his predecessor Arafat eight years earlier. Abbas will be deferring any possible resolution of the conflict to a future generation of Palestinian leaders; like Yasser Arafat, he will not see an independent Palestinian state in his lifetime. If Abbas chose to negotiate with Israel, he would be committing an act of treason as defined by Article 32 of the Hamas Covenant; he would be targeted for assassination like Kim Jong-Nam! Most likely, there will be another Gaza war, for which Hamas is already preparing. However this time Israel will pummel Gaza to the point of either “unconditional surrender,” or total obliteration, whichever occurs first. As Hamas is cooperating with al-Qaida in the Egyptian Sinai, Egypt will not be available to mediate a cease-fire. Perhaps, after the obliteration of Hamas, a future generation of Palestinian leaders will negotiate an end to the conflict. But that won’t happen in Mahmoud Abbas’ lifetime!


  1. News Items – 02.26.17 – Public_COINTEL - February 25, 2017

    […] “Should the Palestinians seek justice at the International Criminal Court?,” by Richard Falk — Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice and Professor Emeritus of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University; former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestine; former professor at the Universities of Harvard and Ohio State; and Chair of the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: