[kyboren]

ICC claims[0] that since:

  - The Palestinian Authority claims to represent 'Palestine'
  - UNGA Resolution 67/19 "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-
    determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian
    territory occupied since 1967"
  - They consider Gaza "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" (despite the fact
    that Gaza has certainly not been occupied by Israel for decades and a completely
    separate entity from the PA exercises sovereignty there)

Therefore 'Palestine' is a State Party properly represented by the PA and covered by its accession to the Rome Statute, and thus the ICC totally have jurisdiction over Gaza and non-party state Israel's actions there.

Beyond the absurd sophistry and incoherent reasoning, Israel is--once again--not a signatory to the ICC. Asserting jurisdiction over a sovereign entity without their consent is a violation of state immunity[1], a legal concept predating the ICC by over 600 years.

I'd say that qualifies as an overstep.

[0]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/p... [1]: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...

[llm_nerd]

Bizarre that you cite state immunity like this is some fundamental truth. Talk about sophistry. Do you understand what a "legal concept" is? And if you think the US of all places observes the notion of state immunity for other states, that's just a fucking howler.

"Beyond the absurd sophistry and incoherent reasoning"

There is literally nothing incoherent about the reasoning. "Palestine" is a member since 2015, and literally no one aside from Israel-bots have any confusion about what that means. The fact that Israel, a rogue nuclear armed global pariah, isn't is *utterly irrelevant*. Netanyahu is to be held accountable if they step foot in any Western nation beside its partner in crime Idiocracy supplicant.

[kyboren]

Bizarre that you hold the validity of the ICC's claim to jurisdiction up as some fundamental truth. It's a creature of its signatory states and is not some arbiter of morality.

Regardless of the US's willingness to ignore customary international law, the "International Criminal Court"'s willingness to ignore customary international law is worthy of reprimand, and their facially ridiculous claim to jurisdiction over Gaza was fairly characterized as overstepping their authority.

> literally no one aside from Israel-bots have any confusion about what that means

"Palestine" probably includes Area A. What about Area B? Probably not Area C. How about the settlements? Gaza--which is actually controlled by a totally different government? East Jerusalem? "From the river to the sea"?

It seems to me that there is actually a great deal of confusion about what exactly "Palestine" means. It certainly doesn't refer to any specific area with defined borders and a single sovereign.

> Israel-bots

> rogue nuclear armed global pariah

> partner in crime Idiocracy supplicant

Conversing with you is a chore and I doubt there is any value to be had continuing our discourse. Have a good one.

[dlubarov]

> "Palestine" is a member since 2015, and literally no one aside from Israel-bots have any confusion about what that means.

Except that the people who joined on behalf of Palestine have never controlled Gaza, while the government that actually controls Gaza never accepted the ICC's jurisdiction.

I can similarly declare myself the king of Gaza, and decree that Gaza is under the jurisdiction of my newly invented Court of Daniel, and it would make about as much sense from a legal perspective.