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

The arrest warrants are as solid as humanly possible.

Before the arrest warrant by the Judge, before the ICC prosecutor even attempted to ask for arrest, they asked second opinion from a Panel of Experts in International Law that included top experts, including Theodor Meron; Hebrew University (M.J.), Harvard Law School (LL.M., J.S.D.) and Cambridge University (Diploma in Public International Law) who was once was a legal adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then Israeli Ambassador in Canada, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and so on.

The panel unanimously agreed with the prosecutor.

The court has jurisdiction. Gaza is not part of Israel by any law.

It's a direct application of 1949 Geneva Conventions. Most Israeli legal scholars agree that Israel's defense does not work.

>I'm not a lawyer but it is not sufficient for Gaza not to be considered "part of Israel".

How?

>Technically Gaza should either be Egyptian or Israeli.

What? No. Why on earth would that be the case?

>There is no state of Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_P...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand there definitely is a state of Palestine.

>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.)