Tags : USA, United States, Israel, Gaza, Palestine, Hamas, ICC., Israel war crimes,
How US moved to block International Criminal Court referal for alleged Israeli war crimes after 2009 Goldstone report.
GOLDSTONE FOLLOW-UP ACTION
1. (UDF) Il s’agit d’une demande d’intervention. Veuillez consulter le paragraphe
3. Ambassade Suva pour les Fidji, Tonga, Nauru, Kiribati et Tuvalu. Ambassade Libreville pour le Gabon et Sao Tomé. Embassy Port Moresby pour la Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée et le Vanuatu. Embassy Port Louis pour les Seychelles seulement. Embassy Koror pour les Palaos seulement. Ambassade de Bridgetown pour Saint-Kitts-et-Nevis seulement. Ambassade de Berne pour le Liechtenstein seulement. É.-U. Consulter le général Florence pour Saint-Marin. É.-U. Consulat général de Marseille pour Monaco. Consulat général des États-Unis pour Barcelone pour Andorre.
2. (SBU) Summary: We expect a vote on Friday, February 26 on a Palestinian-drafted resolution in the UN General Assembly to follow up on the Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict led by Justice Goldstone (the so-called Goldstone Report), which was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council in January 2009 and issued in September 2009. The Report alleges human rights abuses, including alleged war crimes committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict in the winter of 2008-2009, although it also alleges some violations by Hamas, Palestinian armed groups and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank. The report has already given rise to two UN resolutions to date, one in the Human Rights Council and one in the UN General Assembly (UNGA). The UNGA resolution of November 5, 2009 called for Israel and the Palestinians to undertake investigations into the Report’s allegations and requested the Secretary-General to report within three months on the status of those investigations. The Government of Israel submitted a report to the UN Secretary-General detailing their investigations process and reported that all allegations in the Goldstone Report are being investigated and reviewed; it is also considering establishing an independent inquiry. The PA submitted a Presidential Decree establishing an Independent Investigations Commission to follow up on the implementation of the recommendations made in the Goldstone Report with respect to the Palestinians, and a report on the first meeting of the Commission. The Secretary-General’s report, which was issued on February 4, 2010, notes that the parties’ investigations are, with regard to Israel, ongoing, and in the case of the Palestinian side, only recently initiated, and therefore concludes that it is too early to evaluate their efforts. In addition to the expected UNGA vote on February 26, we will face another round on Goldstone at the 13th session of the Human Rights Council (beginning March 1). Since the Goldstone Report was released, the United States has sought to minimize its negative fallout for Arab-Israeli peacemaking and to avoid having it increase tensions in the region. As we head into new rounds of Goldstone voting in New York and Geneva, we will aim to continue to limit damage to Special Envoy Mitchell’s peace efforts, contain other potential negative fallout from the Report, limit our isolation to the extent possible, and limit follow-up action. Our emphasis at this point is that the parties are taking steps to fulfill their respective obligations to investigate, and those domestic processes must be allowed to play out. We are requesting posts’ support to this end.
End summary.
3. (SBU) Action Request: Drawing on the points in paragraph 14, and paragraphs 15 through 17, as appropriate, action addressees are requested to demarche host governments regarding the impending UNGA resolution and Israel-related resolutions at senior level and as soon as possible. For EU posts: European Ministers are reportedly meeting in Brussels on Monday February 22 to discuss Goldstone. EU posts are requested to deliver demarche prior to that event. Host countries should be encouraged to:
(i) vote no (or abstain) on the draft resolution tabled in the UNGA if they voted thus in November 2009;
(ii) avoid supporting one-sided or otherwise counterproductive resolutions on this issue at the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council;
(iii) keep the issue out of the UN Security Council;
(iv) urge Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to continue to pursue domestic accountability. USUN New York, U.S. Mission Geneva and U.S. Mission EU should reinforce the message to delegations of countries included here as action addressees and may use their discretion to demarche other country delegations, as appropriate. Information addressees may draw on points as they deem appropriate.
BACKGROUND
4. (SBU) The Goldstone Report was commissioned by the Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva to investigate Israeli violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the 2008 ? 2009 conflict in Gaza. The original HRC mandate was blatantly unbalanced, focusing on Israel, and did not call for investigation of Hamas’ actions. The fact-finding mission was led by Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, who sought in practice to broaden his terms of reference to include Hamas and Palestinian Authority actions. Although the Human Rights Council never amended the formal mandate, the President of the HRC agreed to make this change. Most of the resultant report’s 575 pages focus on alleged Israeli violations, although several allegations against the Palestinian side are discussed. The U.S. Government has serious concerns about the report, including its disproportionate focus on Israel, the overly broad scope of its recommendations, the negative inferences it draws about Israel’s intentions and actions, its failure to assign appropriate responsibility to Hamas for its practice of basing operations in civilian-populated urban areas, and, as a result, a number of its sweeping conclusions of law. See Statement by A/S Posner at 12th Session of the Human Rights Council (http://geneva.usmission.gov/2009/09/29/gaza-c onflict/) for more details. The report also fails to acknowledge sufficiently Israel’s ongoing internal investigations and its efforts to protect Palestinian civilians. The report’s recommendations are particularly problematic, as they call for possible referral of alleged Israeli war crimes to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if Israel does not undertake adequate internal investigations as well as for the assertion of universal jurisdiction by countries not party to the conflict over grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also calls for the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly to consider and take action based on the report.
5. (SBU) The Goldstone Report was formally transmitted to the Human Rights Council at its 12th session in September 2009. The Palestinians, OIC and Arab group initially agreed to defer HRC action on the report, but in mid-October, after this decision prompted widespread Arab and domestic criticism of PA President Abbas, the Palestinian Authority and its allies reversed course and called for a Special Session of the Human Rights Council to consider the report. On 16 October, the Human Rights Council special session passed a resolution endorsing the recommendations of the Goldstone Report (25 in favor, 6 opposed (U.S.), 11 abstentions and 5 absentees).
6. (SBU) In October 2009, the Goldstone Report was also taken up by the UN General Assembly, where a Palestinian-drafted resolution endorsing the HRC resolution on Goldstone passed on November 5, 2009 (114 in favor, 18 opposed (U.S.), 44 abstentions and 16 absentees) calling on each side to ?undertake investigations that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.? The UN Secretary General was requested to report within a period of three months on the resolution’s implementation. This resolution also called for the Goldstone Report to be referred to the UN Security Council and had other problematic aspects.
7. (SBU) The United States has engaged closely with Israel on the Goldstone Report. Ambassador Rice discussed the Report with senior Israeli and Palestinian officials, including Prime Ministers Netanyahu and Fayyad, on her October 2009 visit to the region. From January 5-9, a U.S. delegation headed by DRL Assistant Secretary Posner, visited Israel and met with senior government and IDF officials, Israeli non-governmental organizations and resident international organizations to discuss the status of Israeli investigations, learn more about possible changes to GOI military doctrine, the March Human Rights Council session and the formal Israeli response to the Goldstone Report (Reftel 10 TELAVIV184, 10TELAVIV183 and 10TELAVIV182). On January 20, a high-level Israeli MFA delegation came to Washington to discuss follow-up to the Goldstone Report as part of a bi-lateral dialogue with IO and other bureaus. On February 2, DRL, IO, L and NEA staff met at the working level with the GOI to discuss their recent report to the UN Secretary-General.
UN Secretary-General’s report
8. (SBU) As requested in the November 5 UNGA resolution, on February 4 the UN Secretary-General filed a progress report on the parties? The Secretary-General’s report appended the full text of submissions by Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the status of their respective investigations, as well as a short submission from Switzerland (as depository of the Geneva Conventions of 1949) on the progress of its consultations to determine whether to convene a conference of High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions. Israel’s 46-page submission outlined its domestic investigations process into alleged violations during the Gaza conflict. The Israelis are currently investigating and reviewing more than 150 separate incidents, including all 34 allegations in the Goldstone Report. While the Israeli investigations are based on domestic processes that they say are not directly connected to the Goldstone report, in submitting this update for the Secretary-General’s report, Israel came a long way from its initial refusal to engage at any level with UN discussions on Goldstone. We strongly support the need for accountability for violations by any party that may have occurred during the Gaza conflict. We continue to have consultations with the GOI on the status of its domestic accountability process.
9. (SBU) The Palestinian Authority’s submission transmitted a January 25 Presidential Decree establishing an Independent Investigation Commission to follow up on the implementation of the Goldstone Report and a report of the Commission’s first meeting which took place on January 28. The Secretary-General observed that the processes that had been initiated by Israel and the Palestinian Authority were ongoing and concluded that it was too early to evaluate the parties? efforts. Switzerland reported to the Secretary-General that its first round of consultations ?did not reveal a dominant trend for or against the holding of a Conference of High Contracting Parties? and indicated its intention to conduct a second round of consultations in the near future. The U.S. opposes the convening of such a conference as it will likely be a forum for politicized and unhelpful finger pointing.
Anticipated Goldstone follow-up in the UN General Assembly
10. (SBU) Following the issuance of the Secretary-General’s report on February 4, the Palestinian Observer Mission circulated a new draft General Assembly resolution on February 18 that the Palestinians hope UNGA will adopt without a debate on February 26. The U.S. response to the draft resolution is set out in paragraph 14 below.
Human Rights Council
11. (SBU) We anticipate two reports on the Goldstone Report from Geneva-based UN offices (to be drafted by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, who strongly supports the full Goldstone Report and its recommendations) will be issued at some point during the March session of the Human Rights Council. These reports, combined with the arithmetic of the HRC, will make it almost impossible to stave off a resolution.
UN Security Council
12. (SBU) In accordance with the November 5 UNGA resolution on Goldstone (64/10), the Secretary General transmitted a copy of the Goldstone Report to the Security Council on November 10. Fellow P5 members the UK, France, Russia, and China have joined us in expressing opposition to a UNSC session to take up the report. However, 2010 has brought a change in Security Council dynamics.
Whereas three of the five outgoing UNSC members abstained on the November UNGA Goldstone resolution (Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, and Croatia), all five incoming members (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon, and Nigeria) voted in favor of the November UNGA resolution.
Maintaining solid opposition to UNSC action on Goldstone is a high priority.
Previous voting patterns
13. (SBU) Tab 1 below details the voting patterns of all members of the Human Rights Council, the UN Security Council and EU member states, as well as Switzerland and Iceland, on the prior Goldstone resolutions at the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. All action addressees are also listed (i.e. countries that voted no, abstained or were absent on the past Goldstone resolutions in either UNGA or the HRC).
TALKING POINTS
14. (SBU) Talking points follow:
–The United States is deeply committed to the advancement of human rights and to principled engagement with our partners to advance the cause of human rights internationally. We also remain deeply concerned about the human suffering that results from the Arab-Israeli conflict. As we urge the parties to restart permanent status negotiations, we should all avoid steps that set back the cause of peace.
–As the United States has consistently stated, we have serious concerns with the deeply flawed Goldstone Report, as set out last fall, even as we strongly support accountability for human rights and humanitarian law violations in relation to the Gaza conflict. We have engaged closely with the Government of Israel on these issues.
–We believe that Israel has the democratic institutions to ensure domestic accountability. The Government of Israel is investigating and reviewing all of the allegations in the Goldstone Report as well as all other complaints arising out of the fighting in Gaza last winter and has detailed its domestic investigative process to the Secretary-General.
–We view Israel’s decision to submit a detailed 46-page report to the Secretary-General as a positive sign of its willingness to provide information in response to the concerns of the international community, notwithstanding Israel’s objections to the Goldstone Report itself and to the biased HRC mandate that commissioned it in the first place.
–We welcome the steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to establish an Independent Investigation Commission to follow up on implementation of the recommendations made in the Goldstone Report with respect to the Palestinian side.
–We note the Secretary-General’s observations that Israeli and Palestinian investigative processes are either ongoing or were recently initiated. We note his conclusion that it is too early to evaluate the parties’ efforts. The parties? domestic processes should be given an opportunity to play out. Further UN action at this time risks being inappropriate and counterproductive.
However, if there is nevertheless to be further discussion of the Goldstone Report in the United Nations, it should be limited to the Human Rights Council, since it was the body that commissioned the report in the first place.
— The new draft General Assembly resolution circulated by the Palestinian Observer Mission on February 18 raises a number of serious and long-standing concerns for the United States and reinforces our belief that further UN action is inappropriate and counterproductive. Our concerns include:
The use of divisive and unhelpful language [Note: i.e. the reference in PP2 to East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. End note], at a particularly delicate time in the efforts to re-launch peace negotiations, on issues, such as Jerusalem, that should be resolved in final status negotiations;
The failure to mention Hamas’ role in the Gaza fighting, particularly its deliberate and repeated violations of international humanitarian law;
The unnecessary and counterproductive reiteration of the recommendation to the Government of Switzerland to convene a conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to single out one country, particularly in light of the recent Swiss submission on this issue, which concluded that Switzerland’s consultations did not reveal a dominant trend for or against convening such a conference;
Attempting, as this resolution does, to press the Security Council to take this matter up is equally unconstructive.
The Security Council is already seized of the situation in the Middle East and holds monthly meetings on the topic, the only subject on the Council’s entire agenda that is discussed with such frequency.
–Ultimately, the best way to address the situation in Gaza lies in the vigorous and ongoing efforts that the United States and others are making to bring about a comprehensive peace in the region, including two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
IF RAISED:
–We firmly oppose referral of the allegations in the Goldstone Report to the International Criminal Court. The United States would prefer to see the issues raised in the Goldstone Report resolved not through UN action, but by thorough and credible domestic investigations and follow-up.
15. (SBU) For those voting no, abstaining or absenting themselves on the October 16 Human Rights Council resolution (See Tab 1):
— The United States appreciates the position your country took on the last HRC resolution (October 16, 2009) on this issue. We ask that you issue advance instructions to your mission in Geneva to take the same action again, in the event a similar resolution is again offered in the HRC.
— In addition, we also hope you will work actively within your regional grouping to convince others to join you in not supporting a new HRC resolution.
16. (SBU) For those voting no, abstaining or absenting themselves on the November 5 UNGA resolution (See Tab 1):
— The United States appreciates the position your country took on the last UNGA resolution (November 5, 2009) on this issue. We ask that you issue advance instructions to your mission in New York to take the same action again on the basis of the current text of the Palestinian draft resolution.
–We do not see the need for any additional General Assembly action on the Goldstone report. If there is to be any further discussion of the report in the UN system, it should take place at the Human Rights Council, as the body that requested the report.
17. (SBU) For UNSC member action addressees only:
— The United States does not believe any Security Council action on the Goldstone report is appropriate.
— If there are to be further discussions of the report in the UN system, they should take place at the Human Rights Council, as it is the body that requested the report.
— Of course, any Council member has the capacity to raise any issue related to the situation in the Middle East at the Council’s regular monthly meeting on this topic.
POINT OF CONTACT
18. (SBU) Action addresses are requested to report back no later than 25 February 2010. Responses should be sent by cable. The Department’s point of contact is Courtney Musser, Human Rights Officer, Bureau of International Organizations (202-647-0115 or mussercc@state.gov).
TAB 1
Country (vote on Oct. 16 HRC resolution, vote on Nov. 5 UNGA resolution)
Andorra (N/A, A)
Angola (Absent, Y)
Argentina (Y, Y)
Australia (N/A, N)
Austria (N/A, A)
Bahrain (Y, Y)
Bangladesh (Y, Y)
Belgium (A, A)
Bhutan (N/A, Absent)
Bolivia (Y, Y)
Bosnia (A, Y)
Brazil (Y, Y)
Bulgaria (N/A, A)
Burkina Faso (A, A)
Burundi (N/A, A)
Cameroon (A, A)
Canada (N/A, N)
Cape Verde (N/A, Absent)
Chile (Y, Y)
China (Y, Y)
Colombia (N/A, A)
Costa Rica (N/A, A)
Cote d’Ivoire (N/A, Absent)
Croatia (N/A, A)
Cuba (Y, Y)
Cyprus (N/A, Y)
Czech Republic (N/A, N)
Denmark (N/A, A)
Djibouti (Y, Y)
Egypt (Y, Y)
Estonia (N/A, A)
Equatorial Guinea (N/A, Absent)
Ethiopia (N/A, A)
Fiji (N/A, A)
Finland (N/A, A)
France (Absent, A)
Gabon (A, Y)
Georgia (N/A, A)
Germany (N/A, N)
Ghana (Y, Y)
Greece (N/A, A)
Honduras (N/A, Absent)
Hungary (N, N)
Iceland (N/A, A)
India (Y, Y)
Indonesia (Y, Y)
Ireland (N/A, Y)
Italy (N, N)
Japan (A, A)
Jordan (Y, Y)
Kenya (N/A, A)
Kiribati (N/A, Absent)
Kyrgyzstan (Absent, Absent)
Latvia (N/A, A)
Lebanon (N/A, Y)
Liberia (N/A, A)
Liechtenstein (N/A, A)
Lithuania (N/A, A)
Luxembourg (N/A, A)
Madagascar (Absent, Absent)
Malta (N/A, Y)
Marshall Islands (N/A, N)
Mauritius (Y, Y)
Mexico (A, Y)
Micronesia (N/A, N)
Moldova (N/A, A)
Monaco (N/A, A)
Montenegro (N/A, A)
Nauru (N/A, N)
Netherlands (N, N)
New Zealand (N/A, A)
Nicaragua (Y, Y)
Nigeria (Y, Y)
Norway (A, A)
Pakistan (Y, Y)
Palau (N/A, N)
Panama (N/A, N)
Papua New Guinea (N/A, A)
Philippines (Y, Y)
Poland (N/A, N)
Portugal (N/A, Y)
Qatar (Y, Y)
Republic of Korea (A, A)
Romania (N/A, A)
Russian Federation (Y, A)
Rwanda (N/A, Absent)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (N/A, Absent)
Sao Tome (N/A, Absent)
Saudi Arabia (Y, Y)
Samoa (N/A, A)
San Marino (N/A, A)
Senegal (Y, Y)
Seychelles (N/A, Absent)
Spain (N/A, A)
Slovakia (N, N)
Slovenia (A, Y)
South Africa (Y, Y)
Swaziland (N/A, A)
Sweden EU (N/A, A)
Switzerland (N/A, Y)
TFYR Macedonia (N/A, N)
Togo (N/A, Absent)
Tonga (N/A, A)
Turkey (N/A, Y)
Turkmenistan (N/A, Absent)
Tuvalu (N/A, Absent)
Uganda (N/A, A)
Ukraine (N, N)
UK (Absent, A)
U.S. (N, N)
Uruguay (A, A)
Vanuatu (N/A, Absent)
Zambia (Y, Y)
abstained or were absent on the past Goldstone resolutions in either UNGA or the HRC).
TALKING POINTS
14. (SBU) Talking points follow:
–The United States is deeply committed to the advancement of human rights and to principled engagement with our partners to advance the cause of human rights internationally. We also remain deeply concerned about the human suffering that results from the Arab-Israeli conflict. As we urge the parties to restart permanent status negotiations, we should all avoid steps that set back the cause of peace.
–As the United States has consistently stated, we have serious concerns with the deeply flawed Goldstone Report, as set out last fall, even as we strongly support accountability for human rights and humanitarian law violations in relation to the Gaza conflict. We have engaged closely with the Government of Israel on these issues.
–We believe that Israel has the democratic institutions to ensure domestic accountability. The Government of Israel is investigating and reviewing all of the allegations in the Goldstone Report as well as all other complaints arising out of the fighting in Gaza last winter and has detailed its domestic investigative process to the Secretary-General.
–We view Israel’s decision to submit a detailed 46-page report to the Secretary-General as a positive sign of its willingness to provide information in response to the concerns of the international community, notwithstanding Israel’s objections to the Goldstone Report itself and to the biased HRC mandate that commissioned it in the first place.
–We welcome the steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to establish an Independent Investigation Commission to follow up on implementation of the recommendations made in the Goldstone Report with respect to the Palestinian side.
–We note the Secretary-General’s observations that Israeli and Palestinian investigative processes are either ongoing or were recently initiated. We note his conclusion that it is too early to evaluate the parties’ efforts. The parties’ domestic processes should be given an opportunity to play out. Further UN action at this time risks being inappropriate and counterproductive.
However, if there is nevertheless to be further discussion of the Goldstone Report in the United Nations, it should be limited to the Human Rights Council, since it was the body that commissioned the report in the first place.
— The new draft General Assembly resolution circulated by the Palestinian Observer Mission on February 18 raises a number of serious and long-standing concerns for the United States and reinforces our belief that further UN action is inappropriate and counterproductive. Our concerns include:
The use of divisive and unhelpful language [Note: i.e. the reference in PP2 to East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. End note], at a particularly delicate time in the efforts to re-launch peace negotiations, on issues, such as Jerusalem, that should be resolved in final status negotiations;
The failure to mention Hamas’ role in the Gaza fighting, particularly its deliberate and repeated violations of international humanitarian law;
The unnecessary and counterproductive reiteration of the recommendation to the Government of Switzerland to convene a conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to single out one country, particularly in light of the recent Swiss submission on this issue, which concluded that Switzerland’s consultations did not reveal a dominant trend for or against convening such a conference;
Attempting, as this resolution does, to press the Security Council to take this matter up is equally unconstructive.
The Security Council is already seized of the situation in the Middle East and holds monthly meetings on the topic, the only subject on the Council’s entire agenda that is discussed with such frequency.
–Ultimately, the best way to address the situation in Gaza lies in the vigorous and ongoing efforts that the United States and others are making to bring about a comprehensive peace in the region, including two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
IF RAISED:
–We firmly oppose referral of the allegations in the Goldstone Report to the International Criminal Court. The United States would prefer to see the issues raised in the Goldstone Report resolved not through UN action, but by thorough and credible domestic investigations and follow-up.
15. (SBU) For those voting no, abstaining or absenting themselves on the October 16 Human Rights Council resolution (See Tab 1):
— The United States appreciates the position your country took on the last HRC resolution (October 16, 2009) on this issue. We ask that you issue advance instructions to your mission in Geneva to take the same action again, in the event a similar resolution is again offered in the HRC.
— In addition, we also hope you will work actively within your regional grouping to convince others to join you in not supporting a new HRC resolution.
16. (SBU) For those voting no, abstaining or absenting themselves on the November 5 UNGA resolution (See Tab 1):
— The United States appreciates the position your country took on the last UNGA resolution (November 5, 2009) on this issue. We ask that you issue advance instructions to your mission in New York to take the same action again on the basis of the current text of the Palestinian draft resolution.
–We do not see the need for any additional General Assembly action on the Goldstone report. If there is to be any further discussion of the report in the UN system, it should take place at the Human Rights Council, as the body that requested the report.
17. (SBU) For UNSC member action addressees only:
— The United States does not believe any Security Council action on the Goldstone report is appropriate.
— If there are to be further discussions of the report in the UN system, they should take place at the Human Rights Council, as it is the body that requested the report.
— Of course, any Council member has the capacity to raise any issue related to the situation in the Middle East at the Council’s regular monthly meeting on this topic.
POINT OF CONTACT
18. (SBU) Action addresses are requested to report back no later than 25 February 2010. Responses should be sent by cable. The Department’s point of contact is Courtney Musser, Human Rights Officer, Bureau of International Organizations (202-647-0115 or mussercc@state.gov).
TAB 1
Country (vote on Oct. 16 HRC resolution, vote on Nov. 5 UNGA resolution)
Andorra (N/A, A)
Angola (Absent, Y)
Argentina (Y, Y)
Australia (N/A, N)
Austria (N/A, A)
Bahrain (Y, Y)
Bangladesh (Y, Y)
Belgium (A, A)
Bhutan (N/A, Absent)
Bolivia (Y, Y)
Bosnia (A, Y)
Brazil (Y, Y)
Bulgaria (N/A, A)
Burkina Faso (A, A)
Burundi (N/A, A)
Cameroon (A, A)
Canada (N/A, N)
Cape Verde (N/A, Absent)
Chile (Y, Y)
China (Y, Y)
Colombia (N/A, A)
Costa Rica (N/A, A)
Cote d’Ivoire (N/A, Absent)
Croatia (N/A, A)
Cuba (Y, Y)
Cyprus (N/A, Y)
Czech Republic (N/A, N)
Denmark (N/A, A)
Djibouti (Y, Y)
Egypt (Y, Y)
Estonia (N/A, A)
Equatorial Guinea (N/A, Absent)
Ethiopia (N/A, A)
Fiji (N/A, A)
Finland (N/A, A)
France (Absent, A)
Gabon (A, Y)
Georgia (N/A, A)
Germany (N/A, N)
Ghana (Y, Y)
Greece (N/A, A)
Honduras (N/A, Absent)
Hungary (N, N)
Iceland (N/A, A)
India (Y, Y)
Indonesia (Y, Y)
Ireland (N/A, Y)
Italy (N, N)
Japan (A, A)
Jordan (Y, Y)
Kenya (N/A, A)
Kiribati (N/A, Absent)
Kyrgyzstan (Absent, Absent)
Latvia (N/A, A)
Lebanon (N/A, Y)
Liberia (N/A, A)
Liechtenstein (N/A, A)
Lithuania (N/A, A)
Luxembourg (N/A, A)
Madagascar (Absent, Absent)
Malta (N/A, Y)
Marshall Islands (N/A, N)
Mauritius (Y, Y)
Mexico (A, Y)
Micronesia (N/A, N)
Moldova (N/A, A)
Monaco (N/A, A)
Montenegro (N/A, A)
Nauru (N/A, N)
Netherlands (N, N)
New Zealand (N/A, A)
Nicaragua (Y, Y)
Nigeria (Y, Y)
Norway (A, A)
Pakistan (Y, Y)
Palau (N/A, N)
Panama (N/A, N)
Papua New Guinea (N/A, A)
Philippines (Y, Y)
Poland (N/A, N)
Portugal (N/A, Y)
Qatar (Y, Y)
Republic of Korea (A, A)
Romania (N/A, A)
Russian Federation (Y, A)
Rwanda (N/A, Absent)
Saint Kitts and Nevis (N/A, Absent)
Sao Tome (N/A, Absent)
Saudi Arabia (Y, Y)
Samoa (N/A, A)
San Marino (N/A, A)
Senegal (Y, Y)
Seychelles (N/A, Absent)
Spain (N/A, A)
Slovakia (N, N)
Slovenia (A, Y)
South Africa (Y, Y)
Swaziland (N/A, A)
Sweden EU (N/A, A)
Switzerland (N/A, Y)
TFYR Macedonia (N/A, N)
Togo (N/A, Absent)
Tonga (N/A, A)
Turkey (N/A, Y)
Turkmenistan (N/A, Absent)
Tuvalu (N/A, Absent)
Uganda (N/A, A)
Ukraine (N, N)
UK (Absent, A)
U.S. (N, N)
Uruguay (A, A)
Vanuatu (N/A, Absent)
Zambia (Y, Y)
Source
#Israël #EtatsUnis #Rapport #Goldstone #CPI #Crimes #guerre #Palestine #Hamas #Gaza
Be the first to comment