Jerusalem is the subject of proceedings before the International Court of Justice. It is a bizarre case, in which the PLO appears to be trying to rewrite history, and to have that historical revisionism confirmed by the most eminent jurists in the world.
The so-called ‘Two-state Solution’ appears to be up for grabs. Basically, the Two-state Solution says that the Palestinians have a right to a state covering all of the so-called West Bank, including ‘East Jerusalem’ as their capital. Years of failed negotiations have given way to the growing sentiment that the two-state solution is simply no longer feasible.
The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has for some time been looking into whether Israeli leaders are potentially guilty of war crimes, i.a. in relation to Israeli settlement policies. To open an investigation into the settlements issue, she needs to decide that ’Palestine‘ is a state for the purposes of the Rome Statute that governs the ICC.
In a recent letter titled ‘Europe must stand by the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine’, 37 high-ranking former EU and NATO officials urge the EU to reject President Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ unless this plan commits to the two-state solution and adequately addresses Palestinian demands.
On 12 April 2019, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) unanimously rejected the ICC Prosecutor’s request to authorize her to open a formal investigation into alleged ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘war crimes’ in Afghanistan over the last 15 years. The decision comes at a time when the ICC is under fire for its lack of success.
Every day, media around the world report on the “illegality” of Israeli settlements, and the obligations of Israel under international law to withdraw from the “occupied Palestinian territories”. Time again, Israeli presence in the “Palestinian territories” is claimed to be an “obstacle to global peace”, and as a result all states are required not to recognize those illegalities, and are even obliged to ensure that they stop. Such statements are repeated time and again in the UN organisations like the General Assembly, the Security Council and UNESCO, and are often picked up and repeated by religious bodies like the World Council of Churches. Many national governments, following those statements, are committed as a matter of foreign policy to condemnation of the illegality of many of Israel’s activities and policies, and recognition of the State of Palestine on the basis of the “1967 borders”. Challenging these assertions is often regarded as politically incorrect and those who do so are subject to being shouted down as opponents of peace and justice.