ICC Judge Guillou loses all US IT accounts after MAGA sanctions [FR]

>What are the recognized borders of the state of Palestine?

>If it's a state why isn't it a member of the UN?

Because the US keeps vetoing their membership despite overwhelming support?

Refer to the linked articles. The fact you're asking these questions means you've refused to read them.

>That countries recognize a non-existent state called Palestine doesn't mean it exists

Nonsense. 80% of UN members recognize it. A state that exists. More than enough for any reasonable person. The only thing stopping their membership is the US.

Your insistence it does not exist and 80% of UN members are hallucinating is bizarre. Your denial of reality does not mean it ceases to exist.

If it somehow doesn't exist then how come most of the UN recognizes it?

>It is not sufficient that Gaza is not considered part of Israel because for the ICC to have jurisdiction it needs to be a member of the ICC and needs to have ratified the Rome convention.

Great. It is both a member of the ICC and has ratified the Rome convention.

>Gaza should be either Egyptian or Israeli

No at all.

>because after 1948 it was a part of Egypt and was occupied from Egypt by Israel during the 1967 six day war.

Nonsensical reasoning. Occupying some land doesn't make it permanently or retroactively yours with no possibility of change.

Palestine existed prior to Israel. It seems your understanding is that Palestine suddenly started to exist after Israel's founding. Please refresh your understanding of the history and facts.

>By this precedent the ICC can have jurisdiction anywhere including inside the US, as long as some other countries decide the US isn't really the US.

Sure if in this hypothetical scenario this state existed prior to the founding of the US and most of the world recognized it as such.

Your analogy simply doesn't apply otherwise.

Palestine has not existed prior to Israel. The area was Ottoman and then we had the Mandate of Palestine (British control). There was never a state called Palestine in that region - ever. That is the factual reality.

You seem to be stuck on because 80% of UN members say something that's true. If 80% of UN members said the earth is flat it wouldn't be flat. If 80% of UN members said the moon is made of Swiss cheese it would not be Swiss cheese. Different UN members have different political reasons for saying things.

I have actually read the articles you mention in the past, multiple times, since I make it a habit to be informed about this topic. They just repeat this circular logic where somehow a state exists because it's recognized even though it doesn't actually exist. I'd also like to remind you that the existence of the Palestinian Authority is a result of the Oslo Accords and there is no mention of statehood in those accords.

EDIT: The funny thing to ponder on is why didn't Jordan and Egypt recognize the Palestinian State over the territories of the West Bank and Gaza (and East Jersualem) when they had control of those from 1948 to 1967 and why did none of the countries who now recognize this non-existent state care about that state during that time period? Answer that question and you'll start to understand what's actually going on here.

>Palestine has not existed prior to Israel.

Wrong.

>I have actually read the articles you mention in the past, multiple times, since I make it a habit to be informed about this topic.

No you haven't and no you don't. Asking why they're not a member of the UN (US vetoing) proves this.

>If 80% of UN members said the earth is flat it wouldn't be flat.

Correct. Good thing no UN member said the earth is flat despite the earth not being flat. The UN doesn't dictate what celestial body is or isn't flat. Your analogy is nonsensical.

>Different UN members have different political reasons for saying things.

Irrelevant.

>They just repeat this circular logic where somehow a state exists because it's recognized even

Yes that's how it works.

>though it doesn't actually exist.

Well, they do actually exist, most of the world says they exist.

What is your criteria of statehood if not international recognition? It seems having a currency, a government and borders is enough for you which means you surely believe Sealand is a state? Or numerous other microstates

Who are the past presidents/prime ministers of the Palestine that existed before Israel?

What was the capital of that state?

What was the currency?

What were the laws and/or constitution?

Who was the chief of police? Minister of defense? Minister of the Interior? Name one.

The standard criteria for statehood is: a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

But if your starting point is that a state isn't an actual physical entity, and it can come into existence by sheer will power, retroactively, then sure, the state of Palestine has also existed 10,000 years ago in South America. Also there is no other example in human history of this other than "Palestine".

I would love to go into more depth here but it doesn't feel like you're interested. Your counter point that I'm not aware of the US veto powers and therefore my arguments are wrong or I'm uninformed isn't serious. I'm well aware of that.

You haven't answered my question of why Jordan and Egypt didn't recognize West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian state up to 1967.

EDIT: I'll also add that if your position is that the established international processes for recognizing statehood apply then the US veto preventing that statehood also applies. If the security council has not recognized Palestine as a state then the recognition of those 80% is meaningless. You can't have this both ways, if the international conventions/process don't apply then they also don't apply towards your goal. If they do apply, then Palestine is not a State.

Countries like Canada have explicitly said that their recognition is really about the future two state solution. It is a way of applying political pressure on Israel towards what they believe is the solution to the conflict. They are pretty clear about that state not magically coming into existence because of their "recognition" and their recognition is also conditional on many things which the Palestinians have so far failed to meet (various reforms, de-militarization etc.)

>a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

All of these are fulfilled.

>I'm well aware of that.

You would not have asked if you were "well aware".

By your own reasoning if the US said the earth isn't round then you'd agree with them. After all Palestine wholly fulfills your criteria of a state.

>You haven't answered my question of why Jordan and Egypt didn't recognize West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian state up to 1967.

I don't need to as it doesn't matter.

>But if your starting point is that a state isn't an actual physical entity, and it can come into existence by sheer will power, retroactively,

>if

It isn't.

>but it doesn't feel like you're interested.

I would be interested but you keep making straw man arguments, being inconsistent and resorting to "some people don't believe it exists so it doesn't exist"

I am very consistent. What's inconsistent about my argument?

Can you give me three other examples of states where their existence is similar to the existence of "Palestine"? How is Palestine not a snowflake here? And if it is, why? What in your mind does the "existence of a state" mean exactly? What is your reference?

Please answer my question about the State of Palestine pre 1967. Did that state exist before 1967? Did it exist e.g. in the 1970's or the 80's? Did it meet the same criteria? What has changed?

Please expand on why you think a State of Palestine existed before 1948 and Israel.

What was the timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support. What's different about the conditions before and after that timeline? What is the international law basis for the existence of the Palestinian Authority?

>I am very consistent. What's inconsistent about my argument?

You really are not. I've already explained. Namely the statehood criteria. Palestine fulfills all the requirements but it is apparent your actual criteria has a "except if it's called Palestine" suffix.

Your argument is self-defeating and, if anything, is simply a concession to my argument.

>Can you give me three other examples of states where their existence is similar to the existence of "Palestine"? How is Palestine not a snowflake here? And if it is, why? What in your mind does the "existence of a state" mean exactly? What is your reference?

What does "snowflake" mean in this context exactly?

Palestine fulfills all requirements for statehood.

>Please answer my question about the State of Palestine pre 1967. Did that state exist before 1967? Did it exist e.g. in the 1970's or the 80's? Did it meet the same criteria? What has changed?

>Please expand on why you think a State of Palestine existed before 1948 and Israel.

>What was the timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support. What's different about the conditions before and after that timeline? What is the international law basis for the existence of the Palestinian Authority?

Use google. The answer to these questions are still irrelevant given Palestine fulfills the criteria previously stated, as far as I can tell you conceded given your refusal to address the fact Palestine fulfills the requirements and you choose to instead deflect to numerous other questions whose answers don't disqualify from statehood.

"timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support."

I guess you also have total snarling contempt for 80% of the world too. It is a shame your biases cloud your reasoning so much.

The simple fact is Palestine fulfills all requirements.

Repeating "Countries are only saying this due to money and pressure" is a nonsensical rebuttal based on no evidence and just reads as a cope to justify pretending something doesn't exist when it clearly does.