[zahma]

I’s guess it depends on who you’re talking to: some organizations or states see Palestine as a state, others do not, and others see it as a future state but not one at this time. Keeping a definition broad lessens the chance of outright dismissal of otherwise cogent claims of wrongdoing.

That’s all insofar as anyone or entity actually respects international law. It comes down to states agreeing that it’s in their best interests to cooperate on a matter. As long as the USA and Europe support Israel and don’t bring to bear any leverage to stop this insanity and form an independent state, the ICC can call Palestine whatever it wants to describe the situation.

[bawolff]

I don't think it matters what other groups think, it matters what the ICC thinks, and they already ruled they think Palestine is a state, at least in a preliminary fashion (i'm sure if this gets to trial the question will be relitigated).

Additionally ICC only has juridsiction if Palestine is a state. So the entire thing goes away if Palestine is not a state (since only states can aceede to the rome convention).

I do not think Palestine being a state is the same question as if this conflict is international. I think it may be possible for both Palestine to be a state and this conflict be non international. However IANAL and that is pure speculation.