Palestinians Renew Membership In Court Of Public Opinion

Ramallah, January 15 – Following a highly showcased move of joining the International Criminal Court, the proto-state of Palestine renewed its membership in the Court of Public Opinion a judiciary body much more accepting of the Palestinian position on multiple important issues. Renewal represents a crucial step in pressuring Israel over its military activity.

Palestine has been a member of the CPO since the late 1960’s, when Israel’s success in defending itself, and consequently obtaining control over territories held by its neighbors, caused a shift in international sensibilities regarding membership. Almost invariably, membership in the CPO has correlated with the perception that a candidate is the underdog; Israel’s sudden transformation from a fledgling state fighting off hostile invaders to a regional military power made it ineligible for continued CPO membership, and the vacated position was granted to the newly-minted Palestinian nation. The Palestinians could not hope to match Israel’s military capabilities, and has thus maintained its eligibility ever since.

In contrast to other bodies that require characteristics such as sovereignty, defined borders, and at least a commitment to upholding the rule of law and basic human rights, the Court of Public Opinion has much more forgiving standards. The Palestinians have therefore retained their membership eligibility despite more than fifty years of terrorism, repression of dissent, and myriad other violations that would give most other institutions pause.

CPO membership does not allow the Palestinians to submit cases directly for investigation or trial, but it can help steer other institutions’ processes in the direction the Palestinians want. Membership in the Court proved instrumental last year in the conduct of the United Nations Human Rights Council, when the Council voted to open an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes during Operation Protective Edge and setting terms that prejudged the outcome against Israel.

A similar process took place involving a previous Israel-Hamas conflict, resulting in the infamous Goldstone Report, a compilation of findings so blatantly biased against Israel that even its lead author later disavowed it. Continued membership in the CPO has allowed the Palestinians to perpetually play the victim even when Palestinian provocations and crimes served as the impetus for conflict.

While Hamas opposed President Mahmoud Abaas’s abortive attempt to secure a Security Council resolution demanding Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines and the endorsement of a state of Palestine in the vacated areas, the Islamic organization made no noises about the move to renew CPO membership. The difference, says Spind Octer of the Brookings Institution, lies in the divergent implications of the two moves.

“Having the UN Security Council specifically proclaim the 1967 lines to be the de jure borders would have deprived the Hamas goal of some legitimacy – that is, it might detract from Hamas’s aim of removing Jewish sovereignty entirely, not just from what the world generally considers occupied by Israel,” he explained. “But no such implication exists with CPO membership – in fact membership in the Court of Public Opinion is crucial even for Hamas’s own strategy, which depends on generating as much sympathy as possible for Palestinian suffering by increasing that suffering and blaming it on Israel.”

Judges in the Court of Public Opinion are self-appointed.