Despite U.S. pressure, the idea of a Palestinian state seems farther away than ever

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

Whilst I understand your point of view, I think we can only wait and see how the ICJ rules having taken all the evidence/views of the Nation States who came before the Court.

Doesn't matter what they say. If it's against israeli interests the US will just veto it.

[coolcarer]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Doesn't matter what they say. If it's against israeli interests the US will just veto it.

You have no idea do you. There will be nothing to veto. There will be no judgment or resolution. All that will be issued is a non binding advisory opinion.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

You have no idea do you. There will be nothing to veto. There will be no judgment or resolution. All that will be issued is a non binding advisory opinion.

 

That doesn't mean Israel can just ignore it without risking being labelled a pariah nation.

 

That said, I think the US may reverse it's policy if the ICJ makes a ruling against Israel.

[coolcarer]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

That doesn't mean Israel can just ignore it without risking being labelled a pariah nation.

 

That said, I think the US may reverse it's policy if the ICJ makes a ruling against Israel.

It’s ignored it before I see no reason why it will do any different this time particularly since they didn’t even send a representative only a written submission.

[ozimoron]

Just now, coolcarer said:

It’s ignored it before I see no reason why it will do any different this time particularly since they didn’t even send a representative only a written submission.

 

That's because they don't officially recognise the ICJ or ICC in accordance with their wish to not be held accountable by the rest of the world. That doesn't mean they reject what the ICJ says as evidenced by the fact that they did make a submission.

[coolcarer]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

That's because they don't officially recognise the ICJ or ICC in accordance with their wish to not be held accountable by the rest of the world. That doesn't mean they reject what the ICJ says as evidenced by the fact that they did make a submission.

Nor does the US but that is not the reason why they will probably ignore it. That reason would be in the submission. You can easily search and find it if you are interested in facts instead of speculation

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Nor does the US but that is not the reason why they will probably ignore it. That reason would be in the submission. You can easily search and find it if you are interested in facts instead of speculation

 

A submission to a court does not mean they will ignore an adverse ruling. We'll see what happens. The rest of the world mostly do recognise the ICJ and ICC and will take action in response to any ruling adverse to Israel. Those steps may include reduction of intel sharing or mil cooperation and withdrawal of diplomatic missions or expulsion of embassy staff. In addition, public opinion would turn against Israel in response to such a ruling. The US and others would also need to take into consideration voter sentiment in the face of upcoming elections.

[coolcarer]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

A submission to a court does not mean they will ignore an adverse ruling. We'll see what happens. The rest of the world mostly do recognise the ICJ and ICC and will take action in response to any ruling adverse to Israel. Those steps may include reduction of intel sharing or mil cooperation and withdrawal of diplomatic missions or expulsion of embassy staff. In addition, public opinion would turn against Israel in response to such a ruling. The US and others would also need to take into consideration voter sentiment in the face of upcoming elections.

I know it does not mean it….lol

 

thats why I said “probably”

[Jeff the Chef]

Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

 

Written Statement of the State of Israel

 

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20230724-wri-08-00-en.pdf

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

 

Written Statement of the State of Israel

 

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20230724-wri-08-00-en.pdf

I'm not going to waste my time reading it, but I imagine they will say it's all the Gazan's fault that israel is killing thousands of them.

[Jeff the Chef]

Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

 

A legal masterpiece from Ralph Wilde on behalf of the Arab League with echoes of Rafaat Alareer 

 

 

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

 

A legal masterpiece from Ralph Wilde on behalf of the Arab League with echoes of Rafaat Alareer

 

I watched that in its entirety last night. He made a very compelling argument.

[Bkk Brian]

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not going to waste my time reading it, but I imagine they will say it's all the Gazan's fault that israel is killing thousands of them.

You're not going to waste your time reading it so will just post about it anyway with what you think it would say. No wonder you have most people on ignore.............

[simple1]

On 2/27/2024 at 2:12 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Doesn't matter what they say. If it's against israeli interests the US will just veto it.

 

USA is not a State member of ICJ so cannot veto any decision by the Court.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

 

USA is not a State member of ICJ so cannot veto any decision by the Court.

 

gold star for the correct answer.

[ozimoron]

46 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You're not going to waste your time reading it so will just post about it anyway with what you think it would say. No wonder you have most people on ignore.............

 

London to a brick that you did not watch the video yet commented anyway..

[coolcarer]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

USA is not a State member of ICJ so cannot veto any decision by the Court.

No country can veto the decision of the court…….lol

 

The court is only issuing an advisory opinion, simple1

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

No country can veto the decision of the court…….lol

 

The court is only issuing an advisory opinion, simple1

 

It's not advisory. It's an order when they issue a ruling.

[coolcarer]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

It's not advisory. It's an order when they issue a ruling.

Oh yes it is …lol

 

Advisory proceedings conclude with the delivery of the advisory opinion at a public sitting. Such opinions are essentially advisory; in other words, unlike the Court's judgments, they are not binding.

 

https://www.icj-cij.org/how-the-court-works

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Oh yes it is …lol

 

Advisory proceedings conclude with the delivery of the advisory opinion at a public sitting. Such opinions are essentially advisory; in other words, unlike the Court's judgments, they are not binding.

 

https://www.icj-cij.org/how-the-court-works

 

LOL From your link LOL

 

The decisions of the ICJ are binding and final on the States Parties to the case and are not subject to appeal (art. 94(1) of the UN Charter, art. 60 of the Statute of the ICJ).

[coolcarer]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

LOL From your link LOL

 

The decisions of the ICJ are binding and final on the States Parties to the case and are not subject to appeal (art. 94(1) of the UN Charter, art. 60 of the Statute of the ICJ).

My quote is from the link………😏

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

My quote is from the link………😏

 

so was mine.

 

here's another

 

Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter provides that “[e]ach Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”.

 

https://www.icj-cij.org/frequently-asked-questions

 

[coolcarer]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

so was mine.

I know

 

[ozimoron]

Just now, coolcarer said:

I know

 

 

What makes you think this was an advisory proceeding? The case will lead to a judgment.

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

What makes you think this was an advisory proceeding? The case will lead to a judgment.

That’s what the UN asked for from the court. Do some research

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

That’s what the UN asked for from the court. Do some research

 

OK, I'll concede that point. However, to ignore the opinion if it's adverse will render Israel as a pariah nation in world opinion. They can't ignore it with impunity.

[coolcarer]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

OK, I'll concede that point. However, to ignore the opinion if it's adverse will render Israel as a pariah nation in world opinion. They can't ignore it with impunity.

Ignoring is a different debate. Nothing to do with my original post clarifying that it’s not possible for any country to veto it. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

London to a brick that you did not watch the video yet commented anyway..

Making things up again. No I did not watch it and no I did not or would not make a comment on it.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

On 2/19/2024 at 4:29 AM, Social Media said:

there remains a glimmer of hope that dialogue and mutual understanding may yet pave the way towards a future defined by peace and coexistence.

What a load of khrapp. These media aholes deliberately inflame the situation because ....... it sells.  Stating an impossible goal and virtue signalling about it - and then attacking those who disagree, is what the leftisit media have been doing for decades.  There never will be a peaceful resolution in Gaza - at best it will be 'you leave us alone, we leave you alone'.  The best hope for that to happen will be the destruction and annihilation of Hamas - and it will not all be done by Israel. More and more Palestinians are speaking out about Hamas and their reign of terror on the people of Gaza since 2006 when Israel left. In the end, the hope is that the Palestinian people rise up and help the IDF destroy Hamas - much like the French Resistence helped defeat the Nazis. Then they can start to commence negotiations with Israel - something that Iran and the fanatic Muslims in Gaza do not want to happen. 

 

Meanwhile Hezbolla is about to be either destroyed or severely damaged by Lebanon. Since the conflict started in Gaza they have launched over 2000 milles into Nth Israel and 10s of thousands of Israelis citizens save been relocated for their safety.  In response Israel has not attacked and invaded, they have shut down the agreement that allowed Lebanon to develop the gas field off the disputed coast on the border with Israel. This will crush their already bad economy and they have only one real choice - rein in Hezbolla or face economic collapse and a civil war. Hopefully this will start and then after Israel has destroyed Hamas, they can focus on helping Lebanon destroy Hezbolla. After that Israel can help Jordan destroy the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Then and only then can a limited peace happen in the Arab nations around Israel.  I think Israel has finally had enough of trying to appease the terrorists surrounding them, who are financially supported by Iran, and will embark on a concerted military campiagn to do to them exactly what they have been trying to do for decades - wipe them out. 

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

What a load of khrapp. These media aholes deliberately inflame the situation because ....... it sells.  Stating an impossible goal and virtue signalling about it - and then attacking those who disagree, is what the leftisit media have been doing for decades.  There never will be a peaceful resolution in Gaza - at best it will be 'you leave us alone, we leave you alone'.  The best hope for that to happen will be the destruction and annihilation of Hamas - and it will not all be done by Israel. More and more Palestinians are speaking out about Hamas and their reign of terror on the people of Gaza since 2006 when Israel left. In the end, the hope is that the Palestinian people rise up and help the IDF destroy Hamas - much like the French Resistence helped defeat the Nazis. Then they can start to commence negotiations with Israel - something that Iran and the fanatic Muslims in Gaza do not want to happen. 

 

Meanwhile Hezbolla is about to be either destroyed or severely damaged by Lebanon. Since the conflict started in Gaza they have launched over 2000 milles into Nth Israel and 10s of thousands of Israelis citizens save been relocated for their safety.  In response Israel has not attacked and invaded, they have shut down the agreement that allowed Lebanon to develop the gas field off the disputed coast on the border with Israel. This will crush their already bad economy and they have only one real choice - rein in Hezbolla or face economic collapse and a civil war. Hopefully this will start and then after Israel has destroyed Hamas, they can focus on helping Lebanon destroy Hezbolla. After that Israel can help Jordan destroy the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Then and only then can a limited peace happen in the Arab nations around Israel.  I think Israel has finally had enough of trying to appease the terrorists surrounding them, who are financially supported by Iran, and will embark on a concerted military campiagn to do to them exactly what they have been trying to do for decades - wipe them out. 

 

One of the problems with your argument is that Hezbollah is stronger then the Lebanese army.