Why doesn't Israel go to ICC/ICJ?

[Humanity]

"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?

 

[aris2chat]

Israel already has investigations internally to show any potential ICC case, hence they are not charged.
Others can bring charges against Hamas and palestinian authority. Israel can turn over documents and other evidence but won't ring a case against the Palestinians for HR violations or WC.

Geneva Conventions of 1906, 1929 and 1949

I don't think you understand the purpose and criteria of the ICC.

Palestinians were so excited to be part of the ICC but it has backfired and they are investigated for violation, which is why they withdrew charges against Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

As much as Israel whines about illegal activity, you would think they would have filed a complaint by now.

 

[Hollie]

As much as Israel whines about illegal activity, you would think they would have filed a complaint by now.

A complaint for what purpose? The ICC has no manner of enforcement for their opinions.

 

[Likkmee]

Simple ICJ is for countries to debate. IsNtReal is a farce. A lie. A territory filled and occupied by real estate thieves(squatters if you will) suffering delusions of grandeur.G-ds chosen ? Nigga PLeez. God would give them a working keyboard.
Like LaRaza but, unlike LaRaza, they have no facts to fall back on.Just a promise from the snaggle tooth inbreds who set the bag of shit on fire.
El republica del norte is real.

I mean. Gefilte fish ? Pass the chimichangas.

 

[Phoenall]

As much as Israel whines about illegal activity, you would think they would have filed a complaint by now.

How do you know they haven't and had it buried by the Islamic group controlling the UN. They cant remove the US veto without losing most of their income and their headquarters in Washington.

 

[fanger]

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

 

[aris2chat]

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.

 

[Phoenall]

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

No they would have to uphold international law and find for Israel, any other outcome would prove that the UN and its minions are anti Jew.

 

[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

 

[aris2chat]

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

 

[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

Exactly and their decisions have to be transparent

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

"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.

 

[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.

 

[Hollie]

"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.

There were no "Pal'istanians" until late in 1967 when the slogan of an invented people with an invented identity was coined by Yassir Arafat.

Your hoped-for portrayal of Pal'istanian Arabs and neighboring, virulently Joooooo hating Arab nations as innocent victims is comically tragic. It was Israel that was, in 1948 invaded by 5 Arab armies with calls to "push them into the sea" and "wipe the Jews off the map" and such threats were repeated ever since, including 1967, and across the islamist Middle East today. Israel has never said this regarding the Pal'istinians. There has been a Pal'istanian problem and an Arab problem since 632 CE.

 

[flacaltenn]

"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..

 

[flacaltenn]

HOWEVER !!! (Always the optimist on this) A real Pali nation COULD eventually normalize trade and borders with Israel and the other neighbors and have PLENTY of freedom of movement.

 

[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.

 

[flacaltenn]

"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?