Palestine Today

Status
Not open for further replies.

toastman

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
16,128
Reaction score
1,978
Points
245
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that takes more than just external, open-source, knowledge.

Israel constantly whines about so called terrorism. So then, why have they not taken any Palestinians to the ICC?

Oh, that's right, they don't have a case. All they have is BS.
:bs1::bs1::bs1:
(ANSWER)

Israel is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

◈ While the ICC is a permanent court of last resort, the court has not demonstrated its authority to prosecute State Governments (ie: State of Israel). The Rome States are written to prosecute "people."

[quote-"Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court"]
PART 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURT
Article 1
An International Criminal Court ("the Court") is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.

[quote-"Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court"]
PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 22
Nullum crimen sine lege

2. 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 favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
◈ We are not really sure that what the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) calls the: "State of Palestine" is actually a "state."

✦ Ask if the "State of Palestine" is really autonomous and self-Governing?

✦ Ask if the "State of Palestine" is governed by a single authority?

✦ Ask if the "State of Palestine" can stand alone?

✦ Does the "State of Palestine" perform the functionality of a "state?"​

There are many aspects to your question that need to be explored. It will be interesting to see what the final outcome of the court's activities produces.


Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Israel is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Israel is a law free zone. It is the wild west of the Middle East. The Palestinians can't violate any international law because there is none.[/QUOTE]
My goodness Tinmore. Law free zone? Wild West of the Middle East?
Your lies, your propaganda and your bullshit get more pathetic by the day.
Why don’t you look at some Muslim countries where it is ACTUALLY the Wild West...
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
9,788
Reaction score
2,475
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I copy, pasted and linked it for you. What do you need, a seeingieye service dog?

The concept you spout: "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle" is very dangerous. Nowhere in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) does it even mention anything close to the "right" as you have it here. In fact, it does not even use the terminology "Armed Struggle." That is a bumper sticker term. In fact, it says the exact opposite.
Where does it say that?

Link?
(AGAIN)

Please read it carefully.

Article 20 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) does

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​


Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,099
Reaction score
2,384
Points
1,815
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I copy, pasted and linked it for you. What do you need, a seeingieye service dog?

The concept you spout: "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle" is very dangerous. Nowhere in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) does it even mention anything close to the "right" as you have it here. In fact, it does not even use the terminology "Armed Struggle." That is a bumper sticker term. In fact, it says the exact opposite.
Where does it say that?

Link?
(AGAIN)

Please read it carefully.

Article 20 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) does

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​


Most Respectfully,
R
What part of that has anything to do with Palestinian defense?
Link? (not data dump)
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
9,788
Reaction score
2,475
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In your Posting #14641, you claim that the Arab Palestinians has the "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle." And you support that claim by saying that the right is documented by:

◈ Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
◈ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314
◈ UNGA resolution 37/43​

What part of that has anything to do with Palestinian defense?
Link? (not data dump)[/QUOTE]
(AGAIN)

I say that none of these support that contention. I say they do not.

Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.
A/RES/3314 is NOT law. It merely defines "Aggression" and associate terms things. But it also says the exact opposite in Article 5 (whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression).
A/RES/37/43 is NOT law. It is a UN pontification describing the mood of the Assembly.
You asked for the explanation and the links. (Posting #14650) (Posting #14664) I gave them to you. This "data dump" complaint is an attempt to prevent the explanation of the answer.

One final point: Your advancement of this idea that the "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle" is an example of "propaganda for war." And this claim you make that "armed struggle" in and by itself, is prohibited by International Law (Article 20 - CCPR). The CCPR is the compendium of Civil and Political Rights, and nowhere in it will you find the "Right to Armed Struggle." Promoting this fiction gives others (who fall prey to your ranting) encouragement to participate in violence.


Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,099
Reaction score
2,384
Points
1,815
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In your Posting #14641, you claim that the Arab Palestinians has the "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle." And you support that claim by saying that the right is documented by:

◈ Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
◈ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314
◈ UNGA resolution 37/43​

What part of that has anything to do with Palestinian defense?
Link? (not data dump)
(AGAIN)

I say that none of these support that contention. I say they do not.

Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.
A/RES/3314 is NOT law. It merely defines "Aggression" and associate terms things. But it also says the exact opposite in Article 5 (whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression).
A/RES/37/43 is NOT law. It is a UN pontification describing the mood of the Assembly.
You asked for the explanation and the links. (Posting #14650) (Posting #14664) I gave them to you. This "data dump" complaint is an attempt to prevent the explanation of the answer.

One final point: Your advancement of this idea that the "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle" is an example of "propaganda for war." And this claim you make that "armed struggle" in and by itself, is prohibited by International Law (Article 20 - CCPR). The CCPR is the compendium of Civil and Political Rights, and nowhere in it will you find the "Right to Armed Struggle." Promoting this fiction gives others (who fall prey to your ranting) encouragement to participate in violence.


Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Here again, you base your conclusion on false premise.
Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.
This says nothing about Palestine's defensive position that it has held for a hundred years.
 

toastman

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
16,128
Reaction score
1,978
Points
245
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

In your Posting #14641, you claim that the Arab Palestinians has the "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle." And you support that claim by saying that the right is documented by:

◈ Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
◈ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314
◈ UNGA resolution 37/43​

What part of that has anything to do with Palestinian defense?
Link? (not data dump)
(AGAIN)

I say that none of these support that contention. I say they do not.

Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.
A/RES/3314 is NOT law. It merely defines "Aggression" and associate terms things. But it also says the exact opposite in Article 5 (whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression).
A/RES/37/43 is NOT law. It is a UN pontification describing the mood of the Assembly.
You asked for the explanation and the links. (Posting #14650) (Posting #14664) I gave them to you. This "data dump" complaint is an attempt to prevent the explanation of the answer.

One final point: Your advancement of this idea that the "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle" is an example of "propaganda for war." And this claim you make that "armed struggle" in and by itself, is prohibited by International Law (Article 20 - CCPR). The CCPR is the compendium of Civil and Political Rights, and nowhere in it will you find the "Right to Armed Struggle." Promoting this fiction gives others (who fall prey to your ranting) encouragement to participate in violence.


Most Respectfully,
R
Here again, you base your conclusion on false premise.
Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.
This says nothing about Palestine's defensive position that it has held for a hundred years.[/QUOTE]
Rocco posted links to back up his statements . You posted jibberish. You lost, again. Get over it .
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
9,788
Reaction score
2,475
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no "false premise" here.

Here again, you base your conclusion on false premise.
Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.
This says nothing about Palestine's defensive position that it has held for a hundred years.
(COMMENT)

100 Years ago - 1920

◈ First, they were citizens of the Ottoman Empire under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). This was true until June 1920

◈ Second, they were citizens of the Government of Palestine under the complete Administration of the British High Commissioner.​

THEN in 1948:

◈ They became either:

✦ Citizen of Israel.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Egyptian Military Government in the Gaza Strip.​

In 1974: The Seventh Arab League Summit Conference passed a resolution that stipulated:

◈ Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.​

◈ December 1998, "Palestine" was a term used in place of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).​

Today 2020

◈ Some are Citizens of the territory under Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority).

◈ Some are Citizens of territory under Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under Area C (full Israeli civil and security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

◈ And Some still remain Israeli citizens.​




Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,099
Reaction score
2,384
Points
1,815
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no "false premise" here.

Here again, you base your conclusion on false premise.
Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.
This says nothing about Palestine's defensive position that it has held for a hundred years.
(COMMENT)

100 Years ago - 1920

◈ First, they were citizens of the Ottoman Empire under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). This was true until June 1920

◈ Second, they were citizens of the Government of Palestine under the complete Administration of the British High Commissioner.​

THEN in 1948:
◈ They became either:

✦ Citizen of Israel.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Egyptian Military Government in the Gaza Strip.​

In 1974: The Seventh Arab League Summit Conference passed a resolution that stipulated:

◈ Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.​

◈ December 1998, "Palestine" was a term used in place of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).​

Today 2020

◈ Some are Citizens of the territory under Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority).

◈ Some are Citizens of territory under Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under Area C (full Israeli civil and security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

◈ And Some still remain Israeli citizens.​




Most Respectfully,
R
OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,099
Reaction score
2,384
Points
1,815
Palestinians attend an art exhibition organized by the General Union of Cultural Centers in Gaza City. Photo by Mahmoud al-Hindi.

 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,099
Reaction score
2,384
Points
1,815
A Palestinian man fixes a bicycle at his Gaza City shop.

 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,099
Reaction score
2,384
Points
1,815
A Palestinian artist works on a sculpture during a workshop at the Shababek for Contemporary Art center in Gaza City. Photo by Ashraf Amra.

 

toastman

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
16,128
Reaction score
1,978
Points
245
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no "false premise" here.

Here again, you base your conclusion on false premise.
Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.
This says nothing about Palestine's defensive position that it has held for a hundred years.
(COMMENT)

100 Years ago - 1920

◈ First, they were citizens of the Ottoman Empire under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). This was true until June 1920

◈ Second, they were citizens of the Government of Palestine under the complete Administration of the British High Commissioner.​

THEN in 1948:
◈ They became either:

✦ Citizen of Israel.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Egyptian Military Government in the Gaza Strip.​

In 1974: The Seventh Arab League Summit Conference passed a resolution that stipulated:

◈ Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.​

◈ December 1998, "Palestine" was a term used in place of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).​

Today 2020

◈ Some are Citizens of the territory under Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority).

◈ Some are Citizens of territory under Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under Area C (full Israeli civil and security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

◈ And Some still remain Israeli citizens.​




Most Respectfully,
R
OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?
Learn how to read . It has EVERYTHING to do with your post...
 

ILOVEISRAEL

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,254
Reaction score
409
Points
160
A Palestinian man fixes a bicycle at his Gaza City shop.

The PA Proves Why a Two State Solution Will Not Work - Israel Unwired

Olmert really believes they are people of " peace?" Someone should ask him why Abbas rejected his offer without offering anything in return
All Tinmore has to offer is a “ funny face” Ask why Israel should accept the Pre 67 Conditions of being deprived of their Religious Sites and there will be no response. He honestly does not have the ability to understand that will never happen again
:boo_hoo14:
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
58,099
Reaction score
2,384
Points
1,815
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no "false premise" here.

Here again, you base your conclusion on false premise.
Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.
This says nothing about Palestine's defensive position that it has held for a hundred years.
(COMMENT)

100 Years ago - 1920

◈ First, they were citizens of the Ottoman Empire under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). This was true until June 1920

◈ Second, they were citizens of the Government of Palestine under the complete Administration of the British High Commissioner.​

THEN in 1948:
◈ They became either:

✦ Citizen of Israel.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Egyptian Military Government in the Gaza Strip.​

In 1974: The Seventh Arab League Summit Conference passed a resolution that stipulated:

◈ Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.​

◈ December 1998, "Palestine" was a term used in place of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).​

Today 2020

◈ Some are Citizens of the territory under Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority).

◈ Some are Citizens of territory under Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under Area C (full Israeli civil and security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

◈ And Some still remain Israeli citizens.​




Most Respectfully,
R
OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?
Learn how to read . It has EVERYTHING to do with your post...
Where did it mention defense?

It didn't. :290968001256257790-final:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top