- Dec 6, 2009
- Reaction score
Thanks for the links. They are a good read.RE: Who Are The Palestinians?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: MORE DISINFORMATION → I'm not sure this is true at all. And I saw the confusion by the International Criminal Court (Trial Chamber).
(Palestine Observations)Oslo expired.
On 26 May 2020, the Chamber noted that “President Abbas declared inter alias that ‘the Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine are absolved, as of today, of all the agreements and understandings with the American and Israeli governments and of all the commitments based on these understandings and agreements, including the security ones’”. The Chamber “request[ed] Palestine to provide additional information on this statement, including the question whether it pertains to any of the Oslo agreements between Palestine and Israel, by no later than 10 June 2020”. It also ordered the Prosecutor and invited Israel to submit a response by no later than 24 June 2020.
(EXCERPT: The State of Palestine’s response to the Pre-Trial Chamber’s Order requesting additional information)
Substantively, the Statement declares that if Israel proceeds with annexation, a material breach of the agreements between the two sides, then it will have annulled any remnants of the Oslo Accords and all other agreements concluded between them. It also declares that Israel’s persistent violations of these agreements, and its announced plans and measures for annexation, absolve the Palestine Liberation Organization (‘PLO’) and the State of Palestine from any obligation arising from these agreements, including security agreements.
This does not sound like, to me, that either the ICC or the Palestinians consider the Oslo Accords "expired." And this leaves the door open for adjudication on the issue of "settlements." Given that all settlements" are Area "C" locations. Given that the Israelis have full civil and security control within Area "C."
My impression was that the Israeli threat to annex these certain areas were made to rattle the cage.
4.On 5 June 2020, Palestine provided its observations.6It explained that the Statement was made in response to Israel’s declared plan to annex “Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation”,7noting that“the Statement declares that if Israel proceeds with annexation, a material breach of the agreements between the two sides, then it will have annulled any remnantsof the Oslo Accords and all other agreements concluded between them”, stating this has the effect of “absolv[ing] the Palestine Liberation Organization (‘PLO’) and the State of Palestine from any obligation arising from these agreements, including security agreements”.85.The Prosecution does not consider that the Statement has a bearing on the status of Palestine as a State Party to the Rome Statute and on the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction in the situation in Palestine. The Prosecution has already explained its understanding of the Oslo Accords and its position that the Oslo Accords do not bar the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction in Palestine.9The Prosecution’s position remains the same.