Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"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?
Indeed, that is what the Palestinians have been asking for.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
"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.
"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.
"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 ?
Reads like If Israel were interested in repeating Barak's, Olmert's fiaskos ... , mucho so, indeed.If Israel were interested in a peaceful solution, ....
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?
"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?
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...
"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.
"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.
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
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.
Maybe, Israel just knows that's a rotten-through australian-state-symbol court?If Israel is RIGHT, then surely taking their case to the ICC/ICJ is a no brainer? Isn't it?
