Israel May Owe Iran $100 M For Oil Leak

TheCommodore · Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:49 am

Now..... wouldn't this be something if it turned out to be true !!

http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.630851

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/brea...illion-in-compensation/2014/12/10/

[Edited 2014-12-11 01:51:42]

[Edited 2014-12-11 01:52:10]

greasespot · Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:11 pm

I am guessing they will not pay.

I wouldn't either. No way in hell would I give a dime to a regime that wants the eradication of your people'.

Vs

casinterest · Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:56 pm

Here is a more detailed article that highlights the fact that this is far from over, basically because Israel has not really presented it's defense yet. Of which there are many valid ones .

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Isr...breached-Eilat-oil-pipeline-384275

flyingturtle · Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:17 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2):

From jpost.com: "Why should Israel pay funds to a regime that may turn the funds around to Hamas, Hezbollah or its nuclear program to use against Israel"

Well, if I damaged the car of a known child molester and serial rapist I couldn't refuse to pay damages on whatever moral grounds. "He may use the funds to carry out more crimes!" - nope.

Saying the funds could be diverted to Hezbollah is the weakest possible reason to withhold payment, and I wonder how anybody could actually use that argument (except to provide some laughing stock for lawyers).

David

WestJet747 · Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:42 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 3):
Well, if I damaged the car of a known child molester and serial rapist I couldn't refuse to pay damages on whatever moral grounds. "He may use the funds to carry out more crimes!" - nope.

I don't think you fully comprehend the argument. The issue is that there is a high likelihood that Israel's money would then be used to attack Israel. That is very different from funding a state or organization that would use the funds for devious deeds elsewhere. Why should Israel fund potential attacks against themselves?

Technically Israel should pay, but if I were Israel I definitely would not pay.

casinterest · Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:43 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 3):

Saying the funds could be diverted to Hezbollah is the weakest possible reason to withhold payment, and I wonder how anybody could actually use that argument (except to provide some laughing stock for lawyers).

This wasn't the argument that I would expect to win. The abandonment of the line by Iran would be the one with the most strength, along with the ecological disasters that Iran was causing due to their Revolution.

flyingturtle · Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:55 pm

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 4):
Why should Israel fund potential attacks against themselves?

This neatly sidesteps the issue at hand. Iran and Israel once signed a contract. This contract specifies an arbitrating committee in case of disputes.

Iran thinks that Israel owes financial payments. So they called the arbiters into action, and Iran won.

That the money could be used to fund attacks is a possibility, yes. But withholding damages for non-contractual reasons (like the fear of terrorism funding) mocks the contract they've once signed. Any civilized country should cultivate a respect for the law, and contracts are also laws.

Israel could become a signatory state to an international court, and then sue Iran for damages because of terrorist activities. But different things - protection against terrorism and a dispute concerning on contractual obligations - can not be mixed. End of the story. Iran could possibly sue in the U.S. to seize Israeli assets for non-payment.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
This wasn't the argument that I would expect to win. The abandonment of the line by Iran would be the one with the most strength, along with the ecological disasters that Iran was causing due to their Revolution.

Yes, I think you're right. But the line "Iran could fund terrorists using the payments" is very tiresome. It makes me sad that intelligent people could even put up such an argument. The abandonment of the pipeline was most probably brought up by the Israeli side - but they still lost. They agreed on neutral arbiters to begin with.

David

[Edited 2014-12-11 07:58:22]

casinterest · Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:10 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 6):
The abandonment of the pipeline was most probably brought up by the Israeli side - but they still lost. They agreed on neutral arbiters to begin with.

The process is not over, and the real reason this is all highlighted currently is due to a recent spill from the aforementioned line, of which Iran abandoned. So there are past, current, and future litigation issues related to it's construction.

TheCommodore · Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:51 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2):

Here is a more detailed article that highlights the fact that this is far from over, basically because Israel has not really presented it's defense yet.

And why haven't they ?

Its not like they haven't had time is it ?

Israel even agreed to neutral arbitration, why do that and then not present a defence.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 3):
Saying the funds could be diverted to Hezbollah is the weakest possible reason to withhold payment, and I wonder how anybody could actually use that argument (except to provide some laughing stock for lawyers).

How tiering.... same old argument from Israel.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 4):
Technically Israel should pay, but if I were Israel I definitely would not pay.

So what then ?

You can say goodbye to any international contract you perviously signed, just cause you don't like the terms anymore...

Oh, let the law suits begin !

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
along with the ecological disasters that Iran was causing due to their Revolution

And what about the geological disaster on Israel's side, I guess that's Iran's fault too ?

blueflyer · Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:07 pm

Commercial and security interests do not exist in a vacuum isolated from one another. If Israel loses their case, they are obligated to pay, but there are very valid security concerns advocating against any transfer of funds.

Fortunately, the world isn't as black and white as many would like to believe. I think few countries that Israel has a contractual or treaty relationship with would be alarmed if Israel refused to pay. Most would understand the unique characteristics of this situation and they'd refrain from drawing generic conclusions.

If Israel wanted to give further reassurance that their non-payment is a one-off, Israel could pay, just not Iran, at least not yet. They could put the money in an escrow account in a Swiss bank to be released to the Iranian government once the two countries have established normal diplomatic relations, for example. Since the funds would be controlled by a trustee and not the Israeli government, that would put to bed any allegation that Israel is looking for ways to not pay up on its obligations.

Finally, Israel may have a technical way out. If the contract calls for payment in dollars, they may not find a bank willing to process the transaction for fear of retribution from the US government.

Aesma · Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:09 pm

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 4):
I don't think you fully comprehend the argument. The issue is that there is a high likelihood that Israel's money would then be used to attack Israel. That is very different from funding a state or organization that would use the funds for devious deeds elsewhere. Why should Israel fund potential attacks against themselves?

Technically Israel should pay, but if I were Israel I definitely would not pay.

How many times has Iran attacked Israel ?

How many times has Israel attacked Iran ?

flyingturtle · Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:15 am

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 9):
Commercial and security interests do not exist in a vacuum isolated from one another.

But yet they do. One cannot walk away from a contract just because external circumstances have changed. That's the inherent risk in entering a contract. You enter a contract entirely on your own free will, and you must bear the consequences - for the better or the worse.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 9):
Israel could pay, just not Iran, at least not yet.

If such a solution complies with the contract and with what the arbiters say - yes. If the money is parked with a trustee, the Iranian side occurs a damage - they "have" the money, but it's just not liquid. And an asset that's not liquid is useless to anybody, it just appears in the books. So they at least would press for adequate interests on these 100 million dollars.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 9):
If the contract calls for payment in dollars

That's not kosher. A mere technicality (e.g. payment in $ via a bank) does not give you any right to walk away from a contract. A contract is nothing else than the written form of a intention. The intention of the Iranian side is to deliver oil to a certain place, and the intention of the Israelis is to pay for that service. A question of form does not trump that overarching intention. Contract law 101.

Israel could still squeeze these 100 million $ into suitcases and fly them to THR on a private jet.

David

casinterest · Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:24 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):

Israel even agreed to neutral arbitration, why do that and then not present a defence.

Because they are still presenting a defense. It just takes time to work through the legal processes. Especially were contract law meets international reality.

flyingturtle · Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:08 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
Because they are still presenting a defense. It just takes time to work through the legal processes. Especially were contract law meets international reality.

It could run well in the other direction - in Iran's favor. The world is clogged with international treaties. Iran could go to Saudi Arabia, for example, invoke a Iran-Saudi treaty and demand the seizure of any Israeli assets.

Especially if an investment fund can make a NY court to order Argentine to pay billions in outstanding bonds, all bets are off.

David

jetwet1 · Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:10 pm

The lack of insight into the mind set of Israel is sad.

I can say with 100% certainty, it doesn't matter what the arbitrator says, Israel will not pay Iran a penny, it is impoliticly impossible for them to do so, any Israeli government that tries to pay Iran will be ran out of the country by it's people.

Right or wrong Iran will not see a dime while there is a fundamentalist regime in place in Tehran.

The US is not going to cut of Israel based on this arbitrators ruling, so Israel's position will be, you want it, recognize us as a country, something Tehran will not do.

You cannot be owed money by something that does not exist.

[Edited 2014-12-12 15:12:34]

TheCommodore · Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:43 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
It just takes time to work through the legal processes.

I can understand it takes time, but this started over 20 years ago I thought ?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 12):
Especially were contract law meets international reality.

Will be interesting to see what happens, especially with regard to Israel recognising and honouring the contract it entered into too..

If they don't, then doing business with Israel will be risky, not only for business thinking of entering into agreements, but for those that are already locked in to contracts with Israeli companies.

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 14):
The lack of insight into the mind set of Israel is sad.

No its not.... This is exactly how Israel works, dishonestly.

And everyone is well aware of it to, don't worry. Whats flabbergasting is, that Israel thinks it won't have to pay, just because the oil agreement is with Iran and it was made before the revolution.

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 14):
I can say with 100% certainty, it doesn't matter what the arbitrator says, Israel will not pay Iran a penny, it is impoliticly impossible for them to do so, any Israeli government that tries to pay Iran will be ran out of the country by it's people.

And as I said above, if they don't pay, Israels credibility will be thrown out the window, and anybody considering doing business with Israel, will think twice. And with good reason !

The arbitrator has already ruled against Israel, but of course, Israel won't have it.

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 14):
The US is not going to cut of Israel based on this arbitrators ruling, so Israel's position will be, you want it, recognize us as a country, something Tehran will not do.

America is a fool for continually backing Israel no questions asked.
But never mind that. Israel international reputation is already in tatters, regardless of wether the US backs Israel or not now or in the future. It is viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and when you read about things like this, and you look at how Israel is trying to weasel its way out of paying up, I can see why people feel that way.

par13del · Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:21 am

Some things are clear as mud to me from the article including the spill, was or is Iran selling oil to Israel via this pipeline from 1968 to present?

TheCommodore · Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:38 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
Some things are clear as mud to me from the article including the spill, was or is Iran selling oil to Israel via this pipeline from 1968 to present?

Yes they are.....

"Israeli Hypocrisy - Happily Buys Iranian Oil"

Israel is acting illegally and against the International sanctions.

http://www.rense.com/general81/ishyp.htm

29erUSA187 · Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:42 am

Hahahahahahah okay. Lemme start

This is from the 1970's. The only reason they are digging this up is because they need money because of the Sanctions

Israel and Iran HATE each other. I mean, HATE each other. There is no way Israel will ever pay, even if the World Court Orders them to, because Israel's protector, the United States, HATES Iran. This money will no doubt go towards their nuclear program, which nobody wants to see become a reality

On a side note, why would the US/Israel pay Iran after they displaced an American Friendly leader?

News like this makes me wonder why the US doesn't cut Iranian contact off just like the DPRK

I mean no disrespect to anyone from Isreal, Iran or anyone with a strong opinion on this. This is just my American

prebennorholm · Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:13 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 11):
One cannot walk away from a contract just because external circumstances have changed. That's the inherent risk in entering a contract. You enter a contract entirely on your own free will, and you must bear the consequences - for the better or the worse.

How many contracts did Iran walk away from - with Israel and other countries - when they stopped the oil flow in that pipeline? Those contract breaches shall of course be settled first. Come on, Iran.

flyingturtle · Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:19 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):
Will be interesting to see what happens, especially with regard to Israel recognising and honouring the contract it entered into too..

If they don't, then doing business with Israel will be risky, not only for business thinking of entering into agreements, but for those that are already locked in to contracts with Israeli companies.

Exactly! Without a lot of trust in your trade partner, there will be NO trade.

If an US, a Swiss or a Russian company trades with a Israeli one - these companies are not in any way affected by Israel's security needs. Any company will be extremely reluctant to say "Oh, you aren't willing to pay. Oh, we see, your country is in danger. Keep your money."

The US, the Swiss or the Russian governments stepping in and reimbursing the losses may be a solution, but IMHO it's not the proper one. In capitalism, the government is not your business' insurance.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 18):
This is from the 1970's. The only reason they are digging this up is because they need money because of the Sanctions

No, it isn't like that in law. Even if you are right you cannot exercise that right if your principal intention is to harm somebody else. The arbiters know this and would have thrown out the Iranian demand if they just needed money from somebody else.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 18):
There is no way Israel will ever pay, even if the World Court Orders them to, because Israel's protector, the United States, HATES Iran.

The best thing for both Israel and the United States would be... cultivate the respect for the law. We've just seen that torture seems to be legal if the CIA interrogates Al Qaida members, but strangely the very same treatment is illegal when the FBI interrogates a U.S. citizen - even if the same number of U.S. citizen could be saved by gathering information under torture.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 18):
This money will no doubt go towards their nuclear program, which nobody wants to see become a reality

I actually fear the Israeli nuclear weapons programme more than the Iranian one. Guess who the non-members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty are?

India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and South Sudan.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 18):
On a side note, why would the US/Israel pay Iran after they displaced an American Friendly leader?

So... the Iranians are only allowed to have leaders that are friendly to the U.S. and Israel?

David

solarflyer22 · Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:05 am

Quoting greasespot (Reply 1):
I am guessing they will not pay.

I wouldn't either. No way in hell would I give a dime to a regime that wants the eradication of your people'.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 3):
Saying the funds could be diverted to Hezbollah is

You cannot just steal Iranian money because the two states don't like each other or fund opposing factions. This is typical "Chutzpah" and Western Hypocrisy as we have seen on the Mistral Aircraft Carrier and Human Rights in regards to torture.

There are not clauses built into these contracts for

a) You insult us publicly and call for our destruction, therefor we don't have to pay you
b) We have to be friends, support each other politically and obey all international law everywhere, as determined by 5 Jews in Israel in order to be repaid.

Its in 3rd party arbitration which is fair. Its in a neutral country, Switzerland if they say pay up, then pay up. If not, then you're a liar, a thief and pondscum. The "Why" you guys are giving is just an excuse. 2 wrongs don't make a right, 3 years olds know that.

Israel and Israelis stole most of the land they reside and its a society and nation state of thieves from its inception. Rarely, have they ever paid Palestinians for confiscated lands. It is quite literally a nation of thieves and this behavior only perpetuates that.

blueflyer · Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:09 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 11):
But yet they do. One cannot walk away from a contract just because external circumstances have changed.

Contracts are not some sacred documents carved in stone at the behest of a divinity, much as you'd like to believe otherwise. Judges are generally loathe to enforce contracts where the circumstances have changed so much since inception that compliance would be suicide. Usually suicide is understood to be virtual or commercial, but in this case it might not be.

Arbitrators tend to be limited in scope and remedies. It wouldn't be surprising for the final decision to be in favor of Iran, however no arbitrator has the power to enforce it if Israel refuses to comply. Iran will need a judge to enforce the contract against Israeli assets, but they may have some difficulties finding one since judges, unlike arbitrators, are allowed to consider the state of relationships, or lack thereof, between the two countries and the consequences of potential rulings before issuing a judgement.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 13):
Especially if an investment fund can make a NY court to order Argentine to pay billions in outstanding bonds

Courts in New York had jurisdiction because the terms of the sale of the bonds stated they would, not because of some judicial overreach.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):
I can understand it takes time, but this started over 20 years ago I thought ?

To be accurate, Iran breached the contract in 1979 when it stopped delivering oil through the pipeline. In 2004, Iran sued Israel for payment of the oil left in the pipeline when deliveries ended.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):
If they don't, then doing business with Israel will be risky, not only for business thinking of entering into agreements, but for those that are already locked in to contracts with Israeli companies.

If Israel doesn't pay, its usual trade partners will not think twice. They are able to put things in context and realize this is a one-off case with a unique set of circumstances, and they will not draw conclusions out of it.

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
Some things are clear as mud to me from the article including the spill, was or is Iran selling oil to Israel via this pipeline from 1968 to present?

No. Iran stopped the flow of oil through the pipeline in 1979.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):
But never mind that. Israel international reputation is already in tatters, regardless of wether the US backs Israel or not now or in the future. It is viewed with a great deal of suspicion

You are right, but this has nothing to do with that. Mistrust of Israel, however well deserved, is affecting your judgement.

jetwet1 · Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:27 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):
And as I said above, if they don't pay, Israels credibility will be thrown out the window, and anybody considering doing business with Israel, will think twice. And with good reason !

Israel does not care, they will simply say, you can chose to do business with us, or not, it's down to you.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 11):

But yet they do. One cannot walk away from a contract just because external circumstances have changed. That's the inherent risk in entering a contract. You enter a contract entirely on your own free will, and you must bear the consequences - for the better or the worse.

Sure you can, ask Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Venezuela, history is littered with contracts that have been broken by people, companies and countries.

But again, here is the crux, in 1979 Iran stopped recognizing the state of Israel as a country, as far as Iran is concerned, Israel does not exist, you cannot demand payment from an entity that does not exist, believe me, for $100m Israel will happily pay Iran, as long as Iran comes out and recognizes the fact that Israel exists.

solarflyer22 · Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:44 pm

I mean the Israelis mind you are the same ones who sold arms to Iran multiple times during Iran Contra so the absurdity of saying they refuse to deal with Iran is just a lie. They sold nearly $500 million in TOW anti tank missiles and F-4 Phantom parts to Iran.

https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/i-thebeginning.php

Aesma · Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:24 pm

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 18):
Hahahahahahah okay. Lemme start

This is from the 1970's. The only reason they are digging this up is because they need money because of the Sanctions

Maybe you're not following world events but sanctions are easing. A slew of US businessmen (and EU ones) are flowing to Iran.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 18):
Israel and Iran HATE each other. I mean, HATE each other. There is no way Israel will ever pay, even if the World Court Orders them to, because Israel's protector, the United States, HATES Iran. This money will no doubt go towards their nuclear program, which nobody wants to see become a reality

Two countries can't hate each other, countries are not people. I used to think that the anti-Americanism cultivated in Iran by their leaders was crazy, but at least in a theocracy that's pretty understandable, and there are signs of hope (young people like US music for example). Lately I'm realizing that there is a similar anti-Iran sentiment in the US (and anti-Cuba), which is really surprising considering that the US is a country where people are quite free and relatively educated. But I guess if politicians use easy populism to get elected, that's what you get.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 18):
On a side note, why would the US/Israel pay Iran after they displaced an American Friendly leader?

Because neither the US nor Israel are supposed to control everything everywhere ? Besides, the Shah wasn't "American friendly", he was a puppet, and that's exactly what caused the revolution in the first place.

WestJet747 · Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:00 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 6):
This neatly sidesteps the issue at hand.

In what way? Israel has the means to pay up but they won't for security reasons, which means the core isn't financial at all. But for some odd reason you're very caught up in the black-and-white world of contract law and completely ignoring the strong geopolitical overtones present in this issue.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 6):
But different things - protection against terrorism and a dispute concerning on contractual obligations - can not be mixed.

Ha! Of course they can. It happens often.

Before your next reply in this thread, do some light reading on the consequences of the events of 1979. Google makes it easy.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 9):
They could put the money in an escrow account in a Swiss bank to be released to the Iranian government once the two countries have established normal diplomatic relations, for example. Since the funds would be controlled by a trustee and not the Israeli government, that would put to bed any allegation that Israel is looking for ways to not pay up on its obligations.

This would be ideal. But given that the arbitrators were from Switzerland, there may be a better place for the escrow account to be held.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
How many times has Iran attacked Israel ?

How many times has Israel attacked Iran ?

This isn't about one country attacking another, it's about one country redirecting funds to a group that would carry out attacks against another country.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 20):
So... the Iranians are only allowed to have leaders that are friendly to the U.S. and Israel?

Iran can have whatever leader they elect, but they can't expect to have countries play nice with them who they swear as their enemies.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
Two countries can't hate each other

Yes they can. It's called policy. Every country has them.

L-188 · Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:38 pm

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 23):
But again, here is the crux, in 1979 Iran stopped recognizing the state of Israel as a country, as far as Iran is concerned, Israel does not exist, you cannot demand payment from an entity that does not exist, believe me, for $100m Israel will happily pay Iran, as long as Iran comes out and recognizes the fact that Israel exists.

A breeched contract is not a contract, so if the otherwise.

Iranians breeched in 1979 then any future claims after the breech are void.

TheCommodore · Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:10 pm

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 22):
f Israel doesn't pay, its usual trade partners will not think twice. They are able to put things in context and realize this is a one-off case with a unique set of circumstances, and they will not draw conclusions out of it.

Of course they will, and if they don't then there fooling themselves.

Everyone who breaks a contract says.... oh, but judge.... "this is a one-off case with a unique set of circumstances" !

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 22):
No. Iran stopped the flow of oil through the pipeline in 1979.

Yes. But Israel is still breaking the international sanctions in place against Iran. Why, for oil. They are buy in thru the "back door"... illegally

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 22):
You are right, but this has nothing to do with that. Mistrust of Israel, however well deserved, is affecting your judgement.

Its got plenty to do with it.

You reckon Israel can just break a contract and people won't bat an eyelid, come on.There is a funny thing in life, and its called "trust" .

Israel would do well to learn what it means.

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 23):
Israel does not care, they will simply say, you can chose to do business with us, or not, it's down to you.

Israel cares alright, big time. Its not in such a wonderful position economically, that it an dictate terms like that. If there is something they want, like oil, they will even buy it from there arch enemy, Iran

And whats does that tell you ?

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 23):
But again, here is the crux, in 1979 Iran stopped recognizing the state of Israel as a country, as far as Iran is concerned, Israel does not exist, you cannot demand payment from an entity that does not exist, believe me, for $100m Israel will happily pay Iran, as long as Iran comes out and recognizes the fact that Israel exists.

Apparently, the arbitrators don't agree with you, and have stated so. Read the quote below from the article.

"A Swiss panel of arbitrators has ruled that Israel should compensate the Iranian regime between $50 and 100 million for oil the remained in a pipeline in the Arava that both countries built in a joint project before the Islamic revolution in 1979."

blueflyer · Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:28 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 28):
You reckon Israel can just break a contract and people won't bat an eyelid, come on.

No, I reckon they can break this contract without losing contractual trust. How many other contracts does Israel have with parties that are actively engaged in its destruction?

I'd be very comfortable betting that political risk insurance premiums will not move a fraction of a point if Israel loses their arbitration.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 28):
Yes. But Israel is still breaking the international sanctions in place against Iran.

That is a separate and complex discussion. We don't know at this stage whether they're specifically requesting Iranian oil, or instead oil that has certain properties, for which Iran is the best, or geographically closest, or cheapest match. Semantics, but semantics make the difference between a technical breach and a moral breach.

prebennorholm · Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:37 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):
...if they don't pay, Israels credibility will be thrown out the window, and anybody considering doing business with Israel, will think twice.

Standard & Poors: A+, stable
Moody's: A1, stable

TheCommodore · Sun Dec 14, 2014 5:13 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 30):
Standard & Poors: A+, stable
Moody's: A1, stable

It may well be that now.

But if they start "backing out of contracts", whatever reason, and not just because you suspect the money might go towards those wishing to attack you, then I reckon the ratings agencies etc, will change that due to increased risk.

Who would you rather do business with ?

Someone who had perviously backed out of a contract and refused to pay you, , even after 20 +years of independent arbitration, or someone who doesn't behave like that and settles its obligations set out under the terms of contract ?

I know who i'd pick, ratings or not !!

[Edited 2014-12-13 21:15:56]

solarflyer22 · Sun Dec 14, 2014 4:32 pm

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 29):
No, I reckon they can break this contract without losing contractual trust. How many other contracts does Israel have with parties

You're all missing one big point here. Israel was due to pay this money to Iran around 1983. 1983, not 2013.

At that point in Iran vs. Israel relations look at where things stood:

1) There was no Hezbollah, it had not been founded yet
2) There was no HAMAS in 1983, certainly not funded by Iran
3) The Israelis were busy fighting PLO
4) Iran was busy fighting Iraq
5) There were limited sanctions on Iran
6) There was no Nuclear or Enrichment program in Iran in 1983

In 1983 all Iran had done was expel the Israeli trade delegation in Tehran and made its usual anti-Zionist rhetoric. Thats it.
Iran-CONTRA was in 1984 when the Israelis were actively selling weapons to Iran. They could have easily credited it then or repaid it.

All of the "moral" arguments you and the Israelis give for not paying the money are moot. None existed in 1983. They simply did not pay because they a) have no problem stealing something b) because it was an Islamic government.

Pyrex · Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:20 am

Seriously, how is this even newsworthy? There is 0% (zero percent) chance Israel will be paying a single cent to Iran on this or any other topic. There is 0 (zero) Iran will be able to do about it. Absolutely nobody will change their existing attitude about doing business in Israel on account of this. Move along, people, nothing to see here, no matter how much anti-Israelis would like there to be.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
How many times has Iran attacked Israel ?

Through its proxy (Hezbollah), plenty.

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 14):
You cannot be owed money by something that does not exist.

Pretty much.

TheCommodore · Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:02 am

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 33):
Seriously, how is this even newsworthy?

Might not be newsworthy to you Pyrex, but to plenty of others, its VERY newsworthy and warrants of discussion. This is evidenced by the number of views this topic has had on a.net, not to mention all over the worlds press when it was revealed last week......

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 33):
Move along, people, nothing to see here, no matter how much anti-Israelis would like there to be.

Its not so much about anti Israeli, I think its more to do the just principles of contract law, and doing what is right.

Israels claim to be the only truly democratic and and principled nation in the region, let them prove it .

N1120A · Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:47 am

Quoting greasespot (Reply 1):
I wouldn't either. No way in hell would I give a dime to a regime that wants the eradication of your people'.

I'd say you aren't coming close to quoting it right, though given that Israel and its supporters have demanded the eradication of the Iranian people, I'd say they are even.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
How many times has Iran attacked Israel ?

How many times has Israel attacked Iran ?

Not a comfortable question for some to answer.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 20):
The best thing for both Israel and the United States would be... cultivate the respect for the law.

The best thing for the United States would be to stop supporting a rogue regime in Israel.

flyingturtle · Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:08 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 34):
Its not so much about anti Israeli, I think its more to do the just principles of contract law, and doing what is right.

The world would be a much safer and peaceful place if lawyers would battle each other, and not soldiers, rebels, terrorists, civilians, innocents... the main reason we have courts and laws is to prevent violent "solutions". Submit a question to a court or arbiters and respect their ruling would save many, many lives.

There are court rulings that are very hard to digest (like the recent judgement of the Supreme Court, where they ruled that it was correct for a employer to not pay workers for the time they wait in a security line while checking out of their workplace - or for Middle East matters, the court ruling that the border fence was illegal, as it encroaches on Palestinian land). Judges can err, but they very rarely do it out of sheer stupidity or ignorance.

What I also like about courts is that they rarely care about the consequences. They only look at the facts and the applicable rules. To say "Oh, if we decide in this way, the money could end up in the wrong hands!!!" would be bending the rules on which the contracts partners have once, on their own free will, agreed.

David

jetwet1 · Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:00 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 28):
You reckon Israel can just break a contract and people won't bat an eyelid, come on.There is a funny thing in life, and its called "trust" .

Yep

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 29):
No, I reckon they can break this contract without losing contractual trust. How many other contracts does Israel have with parties that are actively engaged in its destruction?

I'd be very comfortable betting that political risk insurance premiums will not move a fraction of a point if Israel loses their arbitration.

Pretty much

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 31):

But if they start "backing out of contracts", whatever reason, and not just because you suspect the money might go towards those wishing to attack you, then I reckon the ratings agencies etc, will change that due to increased risk.

How many contracts have they backed out off ?

You are now looking into the future and predicting this will happen, there are specific reasons for what is going on with this situation, those are hard to duplicate.

I can with 100% certainty say, nobody outside the Arab world gives a darn about Israel refusing to pay $100m to the Iranians and they will certainly not stop dealing with the state of Israel because of this.

Alfons · Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:59 pm

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 4):
Saying the funds could be diverted to Hezbollah is the weakest possible reason to withhold payment, and I wonder how anybody could actually use that argument (except to provide some laughing stock for lawyers).

Your argument is understandable. I'm as well living in a cocoon country where I will never think that Simonetta Sommaruga or anyone else from our Bundesräte will ever throw a stone at me at a bus station.

It's nice to live in such a world, I admit. Makes argumenting in a forum also much more easier.

Alfons.

TheCommodore · Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:06 pm

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 37):
How many contracts have they backed out off ?

Why dose it matter how many contracts they backed out of ?

Even if its just the one. id rather do business with someone who has a clean record thanks very much, rather then not knowing ????

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 37):
I can with 100% certainty say, nobody outside the Arab world gives a darn about Israel refusing to pay $100m to the Iranians and they will certainly not stop dealing with the state of Israel because of this.

How on earth can you possible say that....

Wheres your proof or any source of what other countries think that ?

jetwet1 · Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:10 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 39):

How on earth can you possible say that....

Wheres your proof or any source of what other countries think that ?

You know what, we can go round in circles (an A'Net tradition) for ever, i'm going to leave this topic with this.

I can say that because, right now it is happening, in 2012 the Israel economy had $3B of foreign investment into it.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/OEC...n-foreign-direct-investment-371637

Companies and countries do not put that type of money into a country they do not feel they can trust.

I understand this doesn't fit your argument, but that's life, in the real world, Iran can jump up and down all they want, they will not get paid, and nobody outside the Arab world will care, Iran has painted itself into a corner, though the current Prime Minister is trying to get them out of it, here is the conversation that will happen:

"Hi, we would like to do business with you Israel, but we understand you decided to not pay Iran $100M"

"Hi, that's correct, but we would like to sign a Billion dollar contract with you, do you mind that we did not pay Iran?"

"Iran who????"

I don't know your background, one of the joys of the net, but lets be clear, if you think that any country is not going to do business with Israel over this, and Israel is going to care, you are wrong, for any country or company that wants to jump on their moral high horse and decide that Israel is to much of a risk, there is another 20 waiting in the wings to take their spot.

TheCommodore · Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:18 am

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 40):
Companies and countries do not put that type of money into a country they do not feel they can trust.

This problem over the 100 million only became apparent not long ago, so it probably will take time to filter through, and besides, there hasn't been any resolution to this yet, one way or the other.

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 40):
Companies and countries do not put that type of money into a country they do not feel they can trust.

Really.....?

This warning from the EU...

"Earlier this year, the EU said it would no longer give funds or grants to bodies, including research and academic institutions, with links in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-over-business-israeli-settlements

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 40):
I don't know your background, one of the joys of the net, but lets be clear, if you think that any country is not going to do business with Israel over this, and Israel is going to care, you are wrong, for any country or company that wants to jump on their moral high horse and decide that Israel is to much of a risk, there is another 20 waiting in the wings to take their spot.

I don't know you either, or your background.... what dose it matter, we can all have a opinion can't we ?

Although the above article has nothing to do with the Israel/Iran oil dispute, its VERY clear that warning bells are being sounded about potential risks associated with doing business with Israel !

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 40):
I can say that because, right now it is happening, in 2012 the Israel economy had $3B of foreign investment into it.

Well, imagine what that figure would be if more people were willing to do business with Israel, instead of going elsewhere?

[Edited 2014-12-15 17:22:10]

[Edited 2014-12-15 17:28:27]

solarflyer22 · Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:51 am

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 33):
Move along, people, nothing to see here, no matter how much anti-Israelis would like there to be.

No it does. You completely missed the point above. In 1983, Iran had hardly done anything to Israel and was busy fighting Iraq. Israel sold weapons to Iran in 1984 in Iran Contra. They could have easily paid then. There is no requirement to recognize or exchange embassies in order for a pre-existing contract to be valid. Totally bogus logic. Its just theft.

flyingturtle · Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:22 am

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 40):
I can say that because, right now it is happening, in 2012 the Israel economy had $3B of foreign investment into it.

Yeah, that's very meagre. Just three billions? Come on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_received_FDI

On that list, Israel is behind Argentina, Nigeria, Romania and Chile. Just behind Israel are Colombia and Indonesia.

David

[Edited 2014-12-16 03:22:53]

jetwet1 · Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:15 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 43):
Yeah, that's very meagre. Just three billions? Come on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_received_FDI

On that list, Israel is behind Argentina, Nigeria, Romania and Chile. Just behind Israel are Colombia and Indonesia.

David

Thanks for correcting me David, honestly, my mind was elsewhere. Just makes my point a little bit stronger though.

TheCommodore · Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:57 am

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 44):
Thanks for correcting me David, honestly, my mind was elsewhere. Just makes my point a little bit stronger though.

No doubting "the point" jetwet1, whatever the true figure is.

Quoting jetwet1 (Reply 40):
Companies and countries do not put that type of money into a country they do not feel they can trust.

As I said above in post 41.....

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 41):
This warning from the EU...

"Earlier this year, the EU said it would no longer give funds or grants to bodies, including research and academic institutions, with links in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-over-business-israeli-settlements

What is your view on that ?

flyingturtle · Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:50 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 45):
What is your view on that ?

Of course it must be blatant anti-semitism.

David

flyingturtle · Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:07 pm

In soooooomewhat related news, the court of the EU has decided that Hamas is not a terrorist organization:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30511569

Quote from the press release:

Hamas contests the measures maintaining them on this list [of terrorist organizations]. In today’s judgment, the General Court finds that the contested measures are based not on acts examined and confirmed in decisions of competent authorities but on factual imputations derived from the press and the internet.

So it goes. The Izzedine al-Qassam brigades are not the same as Hamas.

David

tommy1808 · Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:59 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):

Israel even agreed to neutral arbitration, why do that and then not present a defence.

Yup, and the swiss are kind enough to publish their arbitration laws in lots of languages for everyone to read.

"Article 190
IX. Finality;
1. Principle
1. The award is final from its notification"

https://www.swissarbitration.org/sa/download/IPRG_english.pdf

The preliminary award is already final, unless there are technical issues. So, if they didn´t make their case yet, for whatever reason, it is to late. If they don´t pay, its not just a major embarrassment, it would also proof that Israel isn´t a state of law. And that would be pretty surprising...

best regards
Thomas

Sorry, if the link was posted before

TheCommodore · Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:39 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 46):
Of course it must be blatant anti-semitism.

So. Is that all you have to say..... "blatant anti semitism" ?

Why do you people, always and I mean always, bring that up when your argument has been blown apart....

Sorry, but if you think that's going to make it all go away, your sadly very wrong indeed.

Makes for a sore looser and a bad debater !

[quote=tommy1808,reply=48] it would also proof that Israel isn´t a state of law.

The state of law, IMHO in Israel is dubious if you are ARAB.

That is being challenged at this moment, with BIbi and his cronies wanting to change current Israeli law and anti Arab standards he wants to make law in Israel, making it a "Jewish" state only

http://www.timesofisrael.com/thousan...rusalem-against-jewish-state-bill/

But I digress !

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 48):
And that would be pretty surprising...

Well, strange and crazy things happen, every day of the week,

Thank you for the link and the post.

[Edited 2014-12-17 11:40:44]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net