Why doesn't Israel go to ICC/ICJ?

[flacaltenn]

Actually -- probably would have been possible up to the point where the King of Jordan renounced a claim to the West Bank.. Didn't even want to negotiate with Israel for it's return did he? So up until about 1988 ---- the Palis COULD have negotiated with Jordan and Israel --- but if you remember -- Yasser was too busy hijacking airplanes.

 

[montelatici]

"Isreal will take their case to the ICC/ICJ and ask them to make a ruling based on the international laws of 1923 and 1949" (Taken from another thread)

Rather than deflecting from the OP this was taken from... To try and abide by the new rules! ;-)

We have two years quoted here... 1923 and 1949 (92 years and 66 years respectively)...

If Israel had a VALID case, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?

First of all -- wasn't an issue to Israel until the 1967 war. Had no "Palestinian issue" until then.

And 2nd of all -- would be impossible to bring an International case against a totally leader-less indiginous people.
If there was a Pali Nationalism movement ( or as Monte prefers -- a Pali colonial project) with real diplomats and spokespeople and representatives, and there was no interest by those folks in NEGOTIATING with Israel on Pali sovereignty --- - THEN maybe an international proceeding could mediate that issue.

"Had no "Palestinian issue" until then."

There has been a Palestinian issue since 1948.

Under the BEST of circumstances -- which would be a return to 1967 borders --- Israel would be in the same state it was BEFORE 1967. With no Palestinian issue. If you think something BETTER than that is gonna happen, you're gonna die very disappointed..

Israel has no intention of returning to the 1967 borders. Israel has no intention of allowing the establishment of a non-Jewish state anywhere in the area of Mandatory Palestine. Why should I die disappointed, get a grip.

Could have possible. If the Palis had negotiated in good faith with Jordan BEFORE the 1967 war. They could have had the whole damn thing AND the blessings of Jordan. THAT would have been "1967 borders" wouldn't it?

It was never possible. The Zionists have never remotely considered what they call Judea and Samaria or any part of Jerusalem eligible to be under the control of non-Jews. Weitzman wanted to colonize Trans-Jordan as well as all of Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

The International criminal court would pass an impartial judgement that would not favor israel

If charges have been investigated and dealt with by Israel the ICC really has no case.
Beside the ICC has no authority to take action. They can however take action against palestinians that commit crimes.
Israel can not be tried for crimes by the ICC. Does not work that way.

But Israel can ask that they give a judgement on existing International law and all they can look at is the aspects of the law and how it applies to the case being held. In this case it is the 1923 international law that granted 22% of Palestine to the Jews, and the 1949 International law that reinforced the 1923 international law by the UN

ICJ can review existing law and resolutions to find a peaceful settlement to disputes

Indeed, that is what the Palestinians have been asking for.

Right up until the ICC/ICJ says that they are to blame and then they drop the case like a hot potato. By the way the Palestinians don't ask for anything they demand they be given what they want and then go on a terrorist spree when they don't get it

 

[Phoenall]

"Isreal will take their case to the ICC/ICJ and ask them to make a ruling based on the international laws of 1923 and 1949" (Taken from another thread)

Rather than deflecting from the OP this was taken from... To try and abide by the new rules! ;-)

We have two years quoted here... 1923 and 1949 (92 years and 66 years respectively)...

If Israel had a VALID case, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?

First of all -- wasn't an issue to Israel until the 1967 war. Had no "Palestinian issue" until then.

And 2nd of all -- would be impossible to bring an International case against a totally leader-less indiginous people.
If there was a Pali Nationalism movement ( or as Monte prefers -- a Pali colonial project) with real diplomats and spokespeople and representatives, and there was no interest by those folks in NEGOTIATING with Israel on Pali sovereignty --- - THEN maybe an international proceeding could mediate that issue.

"Had no "Palestinian issue" until then."

There has been a Palestinian issue since 1948.

Then why didn't they take it up with Jordan and Egypt who occupied Palestine illegally from 1948 till 1967 ?

 

[Phoenall]

"Isreal will take their case to the ICC/ICJ and ask them to make a ruling based on the international laws of 1923 and 1949" (Taken from another thread)

Rather than deflecting from the OP this was taken from... To try and abide by the new rules! ;-)

We have two years quoted here... 1923 and 1949 (92 years and 66 years respectively)...

If Israel had a VALID case, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?

First of all -- wasn't an issue to Israel until the 1967 war. Had no "Palestinian issue" until then.

And 2nd of all -- would be impossible to bring an International case against a totally leader-less indiginous people.
If there was a Pali Nationalism movement ( or as Monte prefers -- a Pali colonial project) with real diplomats and spokespeople and representatives, and there was no interest by those folks in NEGOTIATING with Israel on Pali sovereignty --- - THEN maybe an international proceeding could mediate that issue.

"Had no "Palestinian issue" until then."

There has been a Palestinian issue since 1948.

Under the BEST of circumstances -- which would be a return to 1967 borders --- Israel would be in the same state it was BEFORE 1967. With no Palestinian issue. If you think something BETTER than that is gonna happen, you're gonna die very disappointed..

Israel has no intention of returning to the 1967 borders. Israel has no intention of allowing the establishment of a non-Jewish state anywhere in the area of Mandatory Palestine. Why should I die disappointed, get a grip.

Who agreed these 1967 borders as I cant find any treaty signed by Israel and the non existent Palestinian leaders ?

 

[aris2chat]

"Isreal will take their case to the ICC/ICJ and ask them to make a ruling based on the international laws of 1923 and 1949" (Taken from another thread)

Rather than deflecting from the OP this was taken from... To try and abide by the new rules! ;-)

We have two years quoted here... 1923 and 1949 (92 years and 66 years respectively)...

If Israel had a VALID case, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?

First of all -- wasn't an issue to Israel until the 1967 war. Had no "Palestinian issue" until then.

And 2nd of all -- would be impossible to bring an International case against a totally leader-less indiginous people.
If there was a Pali Nationalism movement ( or as Monte prefers -- a Pali colonial project) with real diplomats and spokespeople and representatives, and there was no interest by those folks in NEGOTIATING with Israel on Pali sovereignty --- - THEN maybe an international proceeding could mediate that issue.

"Had no "Palestinian issue" until then."

There has been a Palestinian issue since 1948.

Under the BEST of circumstances -- which would be a return to 1967 borders --- Israel would be in the same state it was BEFORE 1967. With no Palestinian issue. If you think something BETTER than that is gonna happen, you're gonna die very disappointed..

Israel has no intention of returning to the 1967 borders. Israel has no intention of allowing the establishment of a non-Jewish state anywhere in the area of Mandatory Palestine. Why should I die disappointed, get a grip.

Who agreed these 1967 borders as I cant find any treaty signed by Israel and the non existent Palestinian leaders ?

It was a prewar ceasefire line. Jordan and Egypt exchanged land for peace leaving WB and G in Israeli hands. Israel has tried several times to create a Pal state and gave up the G for the sake of peace. That decision has brought constant attack by hamas ever since.

Pals turned down two recent offers that would have given almost everything they wanted/demanded. Israel has tried. Pals have declared Olso dead so it seem Israel is no long obliged to any of those condition. Pals failed to meet many of the requirements for security and cooperation.

If Pals want statehood, they had better bring some offer to the table for Israel and be ready to make compromises. Israel has been ready to turn over 10,000 dunam to the WB control, but there are attacks on Israelis from there almost daily.

I think many have forgotten the purchase of 1.4 million dunam at the time close to 1000 sterling per ache for land valued between 10-20 sterling, sold to them by palestinians and transjordans.

Peace and land for the palestinians is anything but a black and white issue. Pals have to be willing to give something in the process as well. Sadly thee is no one leader or government that can speak for the people and make a lasting agreement.

 

[Humanity]

The thread seems to be drifting off topic somewhat...

Banging on about 'he said/she said' doesn't go anywhere nor answer the question....

Why doesn't Israel got to ICC/ICJ as suggested in another thread by a pro Israel supporter?

 

[docmauser1]

If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, ....

Reads like If Israel were interested in repeating Barak's, Olmert's fiaskos ... , mucho so, indeed.

 

[flacaltenn]

The thread seems to be drifting off topic somewhat...

Banging on about 'he said/she said' doesn't go anywhere nor answer the question....

Why doesn't Israel got to ICC/ICJ as suggested in another thread by a pro Israel supporter?

Already gave you 2 good answers to that question.. Not the answers you want?? Sorry...

 

[Lipush]

"Isreal will take their case to the ICC/ICJ and ask them to make a ruling based on the international laws of 1923 and 1949" (Taken from another thread)

Rather than deflecting from the OP this was taken from... To try and abide by the new rules! ;-)

We have two years quoted here... 1923 and 1949 (92 years and 66 years respectively)...

If Israel had a VALID case, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?

Trust gentiles to judge us fairly? Sorry. no.

 

[Humanity]

The thread seems to be drifting off topic somewhat...

Banging on about 'he said/she said' doesn't go anywhere nor answer the question....

Why doesn't Israel got to ICC/ICJ as suggested in another thread by a pro Israel supporter?

Already gave you 2 good answers to that question.. Not the answers you want?? Sorry...

No, I'm sorry....

You managed to go off topic nicely....

You managed a lot of deflection and 'Pali-bashing' but nothing of real substance.

 

[montelatici]

"Isreal will take their case to the ICC/ICJ and ask them to make a ruling based on the international laws of 1923 and 1949" (Taken from another thread)

Rather than deflecting from the OP this was taken from... To try and abide by the new rules! ;-)

We have two years quoted here... 1923 and 1949 (92 years and 66 years respectively)...

If Israel had a VALID case, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?

Trust gentiles to judge us fairly? Sorry. no.

Well there you go. So predictable.

 

[flacaltenn]

For Humanity -- who doesn't read thru threads very well and claims I never directly answered the OP.. Apparently you took a pass on responding to either of these answers because you have INVENTED the correct answer to your question(s) and want to demagogue the topic..

This post was on page 1...

"Isreal will take their case to the ICC/ICJ and ask them to make a ruling based on the international laws of 1923 and 1949" (Taken from another thread)

Rather than deflecting from the OP this was taken from... To try and abide by the new rules! ;-)

We have two years quoted here... 1923 and 1949 (92 years and 66 years respectively)...

If Israel had a VALID case, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?

First of all -- wasn't an issue to Israel until the 1967 war. Had no "Palestinian issue" until then.

And 2nd of all -- would be impossible to bring an International case against a totally leader-less indiginous people.
If there was a Pali Nationalism movement ( or as Monte prefers -- a Pali colonial project) with real diplomats and spokespeople and representatives, and there was no interest by those folks in NEGOTIATING with Israel on Pali sovereignty --- - THEN maybe an international proceeding could mediate that issue.

 

[USAF 2023]

The International criminal court would pass an impartial judgement that would not favor israel

If charges have been investigated and dealt with by Israel the ICC really has no case.
Beside the ICC has no authority to take action. They can however take action against palestinians that commit crimes.
Israel can not be tried for crimes by the ICC. Does not work that way.

But Israel can ask that they give a judgement on existing International law and all they can look at is the aspects of the law and how it applies to the case being held. In this case it is the 1923 international law that granted 22% of Palestine to the Jews, and the 1949 International law that reinforced the 1923 international law by the UN

Why is it that Israel is expected to respect and uphold " International Law" but those " rules" didnt apply to the Arab Nations surrounding Israel?

 

[Humanity]

For Humanity -- who doesn't read thru threads very well and claims I never directly answered the OP.. Apparently you took a pass on responding to either of these answers because you have INVENTED the correct answer to your question(s) and want to demagogue the topic..

This post was on page 1...

"Isreal will take their case to the ICC/ICJ and ask them to make a ruling based on the international laws of 1923 and 1949" (Taken from another thread)

Rather than deflecting from the OP this was taken from... To try and abide by the new rules! ;-)

We have two years quoted here... 1923 and 1949 (92 years and 66 years respectively)...

If Israel had a VALID case, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, would they not have sought a ruling at some point in the last 92 years?

If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?

First of all -- wasn't an issue to Israel until the 1967 war. Had no "Palestinian issue" until then.

And 2nd of all -- would be impossible to bring an International case against a totally leader-less indiginous people.
If there was a Pali Nationalism movement ( or as Monte prefers -- a Pali colonial project) with real diplomats and spokespeople and representatives, and there was no interest by those folks in NEGOTIATING with Israel on Pali sovereignty --- - THEN maybe an international proceeding could mediate that issue.

Oh I read through threads... Generally ignoring the ones that are meaningless...

So, you want a response....

Taking your date, for 48 years Israel could have gone to ICC/ICJ...

Leaderless people?

Clearly not!

 

[docmauser1]

If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?

Maybe, Israel just knows that's a rotten-through australian-state-symbol court?