Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

​

​

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,​

​

​

SOURCE: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

NOTE: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT binding. It is the same as any other General Assembly Resolution. What is enforceable as International Law is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). The CCPR is a Covenant which some members have signed onto, and accept to be bound.

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights including the right to return.

Nothing even close has ever been on the table.

(COMMENT)

As you can see from the Preamble (supra) "Inalienable rights" are theoretical constructs (mid-20th Century). The current list of "Civil and Political" Rights (going into the 21st Century) are found in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

The Right of Return (RoR) is actually much different than is most often explained. As Paul Harvey used to say: And now for the rest of the story.

Article 12 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

​

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.​

​

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.​

​

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​

​

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK! And?

After much thought and consideration, that was your best effort.

Stunning.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

​

SOURCE: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

OK! And?

(COMMENT)

What's the matter. Can't you read?

There is NO blanket Right of Return (RoR).

As you can plainly see, the RoR does not apply to those who are a threat to:

◈national security,​

◈public order,​

◈public health or morals,​

◈the rights and freedoms of others.​

The restriction against the return of those descendants that either never lived in Israeli Sovereign territory, or committed crimes against Israeli Citizens is NOT being arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter Israel.

The RoR does not apply to anyone of the Hostie Arab Palestinians that participated in or are still participating in the Mass Border Attacks from the Gaza Strip.

The RoR does not apply to any Arab Palestinian that advocated or incited violence.

Basically, if you are not one of the 700K people who claimed to have been forcibly displaced (meaning you are ≈ 70+ years of age), then you have no RoR.

That is the "AND?"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?

Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.

But we can discuss our idea of self defense and terrorism.

Ok, Tinmore,
after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.

I propose - the subject of war.

What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.

Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of: 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.

At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.

Are you in?

 

[P F Tinmore]

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.

Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

Do they speak English, I don't understand what they're saying.

I didn't find it confusing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is NO blanket Right of Return (RoR).

Links?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The RoR does not apply to anyone of the Hostie Arab Palestinians that participated in or are still participating in the Mass Border Attacks from the Gaza Strip.

What border?

Links?

 

[Taz]

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome.

Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

Do they speak English, I don't understand what they're saying.

I didn't find it confusing.

Ya, but you speak the car bomb language, I don't.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ rylah, et al,

BLUF: That is a very tall order. "War" is actually on the verge of being obsolete. So, I put down five legal concepts to start with as a means of keeping us all on the same page.

I propose - the subject of war.

What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.

Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of: 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.

At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.

Are you in?

(COMMENT)

Just as the meaning of "Terrorism" has been quibbled-over for decades, so the same can be said about "Self-Defense" on the international scene.

And when we discuss the terms "war," that gets entangled in the discussion as to whether or not "Palestine" encompasses Israel (as our friend P F Tinmore has often claimed), since it makes a difference in terms of the AIC and the NAIC. Some of the Articles in the GCIV. Another entanglement is in the meaning of "Self-Defense" relative to the language of the obligation under the Charter (threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence).

I am also wondering about the General Principles of any allegation. Should we follow Article 22, RS-ICC (Nullum crimen sine lege):

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, ​

the definition shall be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated, prosecuted, or convicted.​

​

Just a few thoughts.


Most Respectfully,
R

(REFERENCES)

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Opinion Paper, March 2008 Opinion Paper
IAC 'vs' NAIC How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined International Humanitarian Law (IHL)?

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 285
international armed conflict (IAC) Aside from its obvious meaning as a synonym for war, this
term is used as the title of the First Protocol of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of
12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict
( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 ). The term is not defined (save that it includes armed conflicts involving
‘fi ghting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes’
(art. 1(4))), and its meaning becomes clearer in the Second Protocol of 8 June 1977 to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-
International Armed Conflict ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 ), art. 1(1) of which defines its scope as
armed conflicts ‘which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its
armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under
responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to
carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol’.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg417
non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) ‘ The distinction between international and non-international
armed conflicts has been important in the application of the laws of war although, in practice, the distinction is often difficult to draw. … The distinction has … been important in the development of the law from a legal regime principally dealing with armed conflicts between states to one also dealing directly with internal armed conflicts. … Certain
international agreements adopted since the mid-twentieth century have established a basic the written regime for jus in bello interno , not dependent upon recognition of belligerency, which provides that certain fundamental humanitarian principles are applicable in non-international armed conflicts’: Roberts and Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War (3rd
ed.), 22–23. Thus, common art. 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (75 U.N.T.S. 31 ff .) established some minimum humanitarian principles to be applied to armed conflicts not of an international character. Art. 1(4) of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 ) subsumes within its ambit conflicts that previously might have been thought
of as non-international: ‘conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination’. And Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts of the same date ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 ) essentially confirms and extends the fundamental guarantees enumerated in common art. 3. See
Perna, The Formation of the Treaty Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts ( 2006 ).

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 549
self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence
between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the
Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules
on self-defence: self-defence is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense
is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation
. . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by
that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in
the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4 . See Jennings, The Caroline and McLeod
Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals and Self-Defense: The Customary Law,
66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ) .
(2) Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter provides that ‘[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations . . .’. The relationship between the right under customary
international law and art. 51 of the U.N. Charter has caused considerable debate: see, e.g.,
Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations ( 1948 ), 166–167; Stone, Legal Controls of International
Confl icts (2nd imp. rev.), 245. However, the International Court of Justice in Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Merits) 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 14 at 95 made
it clear that the right of self-defence under international law exists alongside the provision
in art. 51 of the Charter: ‘it cannot be presumed that article 51 is a provision which “subsumes
and supervenes” customary international law’. It has been argued that customary
international law allows for the possibility of anticipatory self-defence (see, e.g., Franck,
Fairness in International Law and Institutions ( 1995 ), 267) or even pre-emptive self-defense
( see Bush doctrine ). Whether such rights exist appears unsettled; however, it is
clear that the legality of a self-defensive action, whether in response to an armed attack or
in anticipation of it, is dependent upon the key concepts of necessity and proportionality.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 599/600
terrorism Terrorism as a phenomenon has a considerable history, but early terrorism was
mainly internal and thereby readily subject to national criminal jurisdiction. For the origins
and history of terrorism, see Laquer, A History of Terrorism (rev. ed. 2001 ); Laquer,
The New Terrorism ( 1999 ); and Reich, Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies,
Theologies, States of Mind (rev. ed. 1998 ). A generally accepted definition of terrorism
has proved elusive for the international community, becoming one of the major obstacles
in the elaboration of a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism. Each of the terrorism
conventions instead merely identified the specific proscribed acts for its purposes.
However, the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism of
9 December 1999 ( U.N. Doc. A/RES/54/109 Annex ) offers (in art. 2(1)(b)) a useful definition,
terrorism being ‘any . . . act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian
. . . when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate a population
or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any
act’. Another definition is offered in the (as yet unadopted) Comprehensive Convention
on International Terrorism (see U.N. Doc. 57/37 Annex II ), art. 2(1): terrorism is an act
which ‘by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes: (a) Death or serious bodily
injury to any person; or (b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place
of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure
facility or the environment; or (c) Damage to [such] property, places, facilities, or
systems . . ., resulting from or likely to result in major economic loss; when the purpose of the
conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government
or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act’. See Saul, Defining
Terrorism in International Law ( 2008 ). See terrorism conventions.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 669
war ‘War is a contention between two or more States through their armed forces…. To be war, the contention must be between States …. War, in principle, is contention between States through their armed forces .’: II Oppenheim 202–204. This definition, though from 1952, reflects the traditional view of war in international law. The term has no precise meaning—or consequences—in contemporary international law, and the term ‘ armed conflict ’ is utilized instead. Armed conflict, as a term of art, began to be used in the four Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War of 12 August 1940 ( 75 U.N.T.S. 31, 85,135, 287 ) and had become firmly established by the time of the two Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3, 609 ). The laws of war, dating from the nineteenth century, regulated the conduct of war ( jus in Bello ; see international humanitarian law ), but not the right to wage war ( jus ad bellum )—although attempts were made to distinguish between the just and the unjust war ( bellum justum, injustum ). Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter outlawed the use and threat of force, making war (armed conflict between States) illegal save in self-defense (art. 52) or as ordered or authorized by the U.N. Security Council under Chap. VII
of the Charter. See Detter, The Law of War (2nd ed.), Part II; Neff, War and the Law of Nations: A General History ( 2005 ).

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yeah, Yeah, I understand your attempt to claim the Boundry of the former Mandate. That doesn't play at all.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 146
delimitation ‘It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a
boundary. The former denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written
source, or by means of a line marked on a map or chart. Demarcation denotes the means by
which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns
of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on. The
principle of the distinction is clear enough, but the usage of the draftsman of the particular
international agreement or political spokesman may not be consistent. In fact the terms
are sometimes used to mean the same thing’: Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and
Diplomatic Encyclopaedia ( 1979 ), 4.

The RoR does not apply to anyone of the Hostie Arab Palestinians that participated in or are still participating in the Mass Border Attacks from the Gaza Strip.

What border?

Links?

(COMMENT)

You already have the links to the treaties and to the maps (where available). You ask this question a dozen times a year. And it has been answered a dozen times or more.

If there was not a border, then the Hostile Arab Palestinians would be able to walk right across. without obstruction. Otherwise, "demarcation denotes the means by which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on."


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

And when we discuss the terms "war," that gets entangled in the discussion as to whether or not "Palestine" encompasses Israel (as our friend P F Tinmore has often claimed), since it makes a difference in terms of the AIC and the NAIC.

Indeed, this can be confusing.

Israel was created inside Palestine by foreign planning, foreign military, foreign arms, foreign settlers, and foreign money.

Palestine, on the other hand, only operates inside its own borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just as the meaning of "Terrorism" has been quibbled-over for decades, so the same can be said about "Self-Defense" on the international scene.

It boils down to simple criteria.

Terrorist = Anyone we don't like.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yeah, Yeah, I understand your attempt to claim the Boundry of the former Mandate. That doesn't play at all.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 146
delimitation ‘It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a
boundary. The former denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written
source, or by means of a line marked on a map or chart. Demarcation denotes the means by
which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns
of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on. The
principle of the distinction is clear enough, but the usage of the draftsman of the particular
international agreement or political spokesman may not be consistent. In fact the terms
are sometimes used to mean the same thing’: Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and
Diplomatic Encyclopaedia ( 1979 ), 4.

The RoR does not apply to anyone of the Hostie Arab Palestinians that participated in or are still participating in the Mass Border Attacks from the Gaza Strip.

What border?

Links?

(COMMENT)

You already have the links to the treaties and to the maps (where available). You ask this question a dozen times a year. And it has been answered a dozen times or more.

If there was not a border, then the Hostile Arab Palestinians would be able to walk right across. without obstruction. Otherwise, "demarcation denotes the means by which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on."


Most Respectfully,
R

Gaza has no border except the one with Egypt.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?

Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.

But we can discuss our idea of self defense and terrorism.

Ok, Tinmore,
after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.

I propose - the subject of war.

What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.

Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of: 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.

At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.

Are you in?

Sure, but this is not a religious conflict. We have to leave religion out of it.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?

Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.

But we can discuss our idea of self defense and terrorism.

Ok, Tinmore,
after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.

I propose - the subject of war.

What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.

Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of: 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.

At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.

Are you in?

Sure, but this is not a religious conflict. We have to leave religion out of it.

Ok, that's why I suggested looking specifically at the tactics,
and emphasized detached from political preference,
so that we can discuss them on their own.

Give me couple hours, I'm just back after work, then prayer.
Will come back and gather some thoughts.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ rylah, et al,

BLUF: That is a very tall order. "War" is actually on the verge of being obsolete. So, I put down five legal concepts to start with as a means of keeping us all on the same page.

I propose - the subject of war.

What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.

Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of: 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.

At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.

Are you in?

(COMMENT)

Just as the meaning of "Terrorism" has been quibbled-over for decades, so the same can be said about "Self-Defense" on the international scene.

And when we discuss the terms "war," that gets entangled in the discussion as to whether or not "Palestine" encompasses Israel (as our friend P F Tinmore has often claimed), since it makes a difference in terms of the AIC and the NAIC. Some of the Articles in the GCIV. Another entanglement is in the meaning of "Self-Defense" relative to the language of the obligation under the Charter (threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence).

I am also wondering about the General Principles of any allegation. Should we follow Article 22, RS-ICC (Nullum crimen sine lege):

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, ​

the definition shall be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated, prosecuted, or convicted.​

​

Just a few thoughts.


Most Respectfully,
R

(REFERENCES)

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Opinion Paper, March 2008 Opinion Paper
IAC 'vs' NAIC How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined International Humanitarian Law (IHL)?

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 285
international armed conflict (IAC) Aside from its obvious meaning as a synonym for war, this
term is used as the title of the First Protocol of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of
12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict
( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 ). The term is not defined (save that it includes armed conflicts involving
‘fi ghting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes’
(art. 1(4))), and its meaning becomes clearer in the Second Protocol of 8 June 1977 to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-
International Armed Conflict ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 ), art. 1(1) of which defines its scope as
armed conflicts ‘which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its
armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under
responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to
carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol’.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg417
non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) ‘ The distinction between international and non-international
armed conflicts has been important in the application of the laws of war although, in practice, the distinction is often difficult to draw. … The distinction has … been important in the development of the law from a legal regime principally dealing with armed conflicts between states to one also dealing directly with internal armed conflicts. … Certain
international agreements adopted since the mid-twentieth century have established a basic the written regime for jus in bello interno , not dependent upon recognition of belligerency, which provides that certain fundamental humanitarian principles are applicable in non-international armed conflicts’: Roberts and Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War (3rd
ed.), 22–23. Thus, common art. 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (75 U.N.T.S. 31 ff .) established some minimum humanitarian principles to be applied to armed conflicts not of an international character. Art. 1(4) of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 ) subsumes within its ambit conflicts that previously might have been thought
of as non-international: ‘conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination’. And Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts of the same date ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 ) essentially confirms and extends the fundamental guarantees enumerated in common art. 3. See
Perna, The Formation of the Treaty Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts ( 2006 ).

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 549
self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence
between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841, arising out of the
Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules
on self-defence: self-defence is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense
is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation
. . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by
that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in
the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4 . See Jennings, The Caroline and McLeod
Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker, Reprisals and Self-Defense: The Customary Law,
66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ) .
(2) Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter provides that ‘[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations . . .’. The relationship between the right under customary
international law and art. 51 of the U.N. Charter has caused considerable debate: see, e.g.,
Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations ( 1948 ), 166–167; Stone, Legal Controls of International
Confl icts (2nd imp. rev.), 245. However, the International Court of Justice in Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Merits) 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 14 at 95 made
it clear that the right of self-defence under international law exists alongside the provision
in art. 51 of the Charter: ‘it cannot be presumed that article 51 is a provision which “subsumes
and supervenes” customary international law’. It has been argued that customary
international law allows for the possibility of anticipatory self-defence (see, e.g., Franck,
Fairness in International Law and Institutions ( 1995 ), 267) or even pre-emptive self-defense
( see Bush doctrine ). Whether such rights exist appears unsettled; however, it is
clear that the legality of a self-defensive action, whether in response to an armed attack or
in anticipation of it, is dependent upon the key concepts of necessity and proportionality.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 599/600
terrorism Terrorism as a phenomenon has a considerable history, but early terrorism was
mainly internal and thereby readily subject to national criminal jurisdiction. For the origins
and history of terrorism, see Laquer, A History of Terrorism (rev. ed. 2001 ); Laquer,
The New Terrorism ( 1999 ); and Reich, Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies,
Theologies, States of Mind (rev. ed. 1998 ). A generally accepted definition of terrorism
has proved elusive for the international community, becoming one of the major obstacles
in the elaboration of a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism. Each of the terrorism
conventions instead merely identified the specific proscribed acts for its purposes.
However, the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism of
9 December 1999 ( U.N. Doc. A/RES/54/109 Annex ) offers (in art. 2(1)(b)) a useful definition,
terrorism being ‘any . . . act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian
. . . when the purpose of such act, by its nature and context, is to intimidate a population
or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any
act’. Another definition is offered in the (as yet unadopted) Comprehensive Convention
on International Terrorism (see U.N. Doc. 57/37 Annex II ), art. 2(1): terrorism is an act
which ‘by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes: (a) Death or serious bodily
injury to any person; or (b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place
of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure
facility or the environment; or (c) Damage to [such] property, places, facilities, or
systems . . ., resulting from or likely to result in major economic loss; when the purpose of the
conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government
or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act’. See Saul, Defining
Terrorism in International Law ( 2008 ). See terrorism conventions.

Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pg 669
war ‘War is a contention between two or more States through their armed forces…. To be war, the contention must be between States …. War, in principle, is contention between States through their armed forces .’: II Oppenheim 202–204. This definition, though from 1952, reflects the traditional view of war in international law. The term has no precise meaning—or consequences—in contemporary international law, and the term ‘ armed conflict ’ is utilized instead. Armed conflict, as a term of art, began to be used in the four Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War of 12 August 1940 ( 75 U.N.T.S. 31, 85,135, 287 ) and had become firmly established by the time of the two Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 3, 609 ). The laws of war, dating from the nineteenth century, regulated the conduct of war ( jus in Bello ; see international humanitarian law ), but not the right to wage war ( jus ad bellum )—although attempts were made to distinguish between the just and the unjust war ( bellum justum, injustum ). Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter outlawed the use and threat of force, making war (armed conflict between States) illegal save in self-defense (art. 52) or as ordered or authorized by the U.N. Security Council under Chap. VII
of the Charter. See Detter, The Law of War (2nd ed.), Part II; Neff, War and the Law of Nations: A General History ( 2005 ).

Thank You for the input, we will need this info,
but I think we can have a more interesting discussion about our own views,
at least at the initial stage, so that we go beyond the years old stagnant discourse.

Then when we can really see each other's definitions, and moral views,
we can compare them to the letter of the law as established today.

I'll appreciate You joining, but at this stage more on the questions
of morality and intent, your personal view on 'self-defense' vs 'terror(ism)'

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?

Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.

But we can discuss our idea of self defense and terrorism.

Ok, Tinmore,
after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.

I propose - the subject of war.

What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.

Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of: 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.

At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.

Are you in?

Sure, but this is not a religious conflict. We have to leave religion out of it.

It certainly is a religious conflict. The Hamas Charter is explicit in identifying that Islam will destroy Israel. There are also tribal and ethnic elements that define Arab-Moslem socio-religious cultural norms.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?

Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.

But we can discuss our idea of self defense and terrorism.

Ok, Tinmore,
after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.

I propose - the subject of war.

What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.

Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of: 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.

At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.

Are you in?

Sure, but this is not a religious conflict. We have to leave religion out of it.

It certainly is a religious conflict. The Hamas Charter is explicit in identifying that Islam will destroy Israel. There are also tribal and ethnic elements that define Arab-Moslem socio-religious cultural norms.

Ah, the Hamas lady posts again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]