Palestine applies to join the International Criminal Court

The UN resolution, submitted by Jordan with the support of other Arab and African countries and, among others, Argentina and France, for the solution of the Palestinian problem with the solution of two states Israel and Palestine within the boundaries set by 'agreement of 1967 was rejected due to vote against the United States and Australia. The reasons for Washington to vote against related to the need for a better climate between the two parties, whose relationship continues to be too tight; actually this rejection is part of the strategy Obama to postpone any future action, including diplomatic, covering the Palestinian problem to the outcome of the vote in Israel. The White House is hoping for a defeat outgoing executive, that might encourage a resumption of negotiations on a more solid. Australia has also justified its refusal with the need that the counterparties obtain a positive result from a comparison able to find a summary to a final solution, rather than involve the United Nations. Certainly this eventuality would be better, but what has been missing so far is the will of Tel Aviv, which is produced in a tactic repeated delays with often specious excuses. Certainly an electoral defeat Netanyahu would certainly favor the change of climate, necessary for a resumption of dialogue with more possibilities. But for the Palestinians the outcome of the Israeli elections is not so obvious, as it is for all the countries that supported the resolution rejected. On the whole there is still agreement on the need for a greater involvement of the parties, but this conviction, must be specified, so far not followed concrete actions, especially in Western countries, except for France, which had supported the resolution Jordanian. Important and certainly to evaluate in greater depth is also Russian support, which should be read beyond the motivation to exercise an American opposition to the action. The negative result does not favor Abbas, who has been heavily criticized at home, for the excessive use of diplomacy and internal conflicts are likely to escalate the Palestinian position drifts toward more extremist. This possibility would favor Netanyahu, especially in an election campaign set on the issues of terrorism and against the Palestinian claims. For this reason Abu Mazen needs a tangible result which enables it to maintain its leadership containing most extreme pressures. Mazen, who intends to continue with a diplomatic tactic, ask the membership for Palestine at the International Criminal Court, which would enable the Palestinians to submit the application for the prosecution of Israeli leaders for war crimes, especially for the conduct taken against the Gaza Strip. This possibility could lead to serious consequences of Israel diplomatic order and compromise the relationship with the United States if convicted. Tel Aviv could be even more isolated than it is now, especially if confirmed outgoing executive. Already only the initiation of a proceeding against international Israeli leaders for serious charges regarding the Gaza conflict, it would still be a success for Abu Mazen, able to mitigate the disappointment for the failure to approve the UN resolution, which would enable the President Palestinian National Authority to reach the Israeli elections with the hope of a positive vote, only to reopen negotiations. It remains to be seen whether the move of applying to join the International Criminal Court, which is necessary for the internal stability, could have similar repercussions in Israel and if not power rather favorable votes to Netanyahu. With this in mind the wait and Obama seems to respond better to a tactic aimed at facilitating the victory of the opposition in Israel.