Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: Israel Hate is Anti-Semitism [View all]Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Why would these issues ever end up before those courts? Is there an international war criminal hiding out in Israel that's playing a hidden role here or something? Because unless there is I'm not sure what the ICC would get involved for.
That leaves the ICJ, which would only have jurisdiction in the event that Israel and Palestine both engage it with the goal of a definitive ruling on some point of contention. Seeing as how Israel has pretty much abandoned the idea of getting an impartial hearing from any UN affiliated body, I can't imagine that it would be falling over itself to involve the ICJ in the conflict.
That said, no one really disagrees as to whether the WB was ever annexed to Jordan. Except Pakistan I think, who accepted it as a legal annexation. Oslo might have been intended to be temporary, but it articulates the last legal framework to be agreed upon for the region. And since there wasn't a sunset policy built into the accords which would allow them to expire after a certain time, they're still valid barring a new agreement. None of the settlements are permanent until a final treaty is negotiated.
In that same spirit, the rights of Jews to settle in the west bank was granted under the British Mandate, and while the Mandate is no longer in effect, that right afforded to Jews doesn't suddenly end, barring the negotiated settlement of what state the area belongs to first. Simply, the same rights that allow the Palestinians to settle in the WB at will also apply to the Jewish people. At no point was the area set as off limits for Jewish settlement.
Right. Government subsidized, sure. Not "government transferred!" Big dif there. One is illegal, the other is not.