Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

Long ago, it was settled that resistance and even armed struggle against
a colonial occupation force is not just recognised under international
law but specifically endorsed.

In accordance with international humanitarian law, wars of national
liberation have been expressly embraced, through the adoption of
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (pdf
<https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume 1125/volume-1125-i-17512-english.pdf>), as a protected and essential right of occupied people everywhere.

Finding evolving vitality in humanitarian law, for decades the General
Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA) - once described as the collective conscience of the world - has noted the right of peoples to
self-determination, independence and human rights.

Indeed, as early as 1974, resolution 3314 of the UNGAprohibited
<United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)> states from "any
military occupation, however temporary".

In relevant part, the resolution not only went on to affirm the right
"to self-determination, freedom and independence [...] of peoples
forcibly deprived of that right,[...] particularly peoples under
colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination" but
noted the right of the occupied to "struggle ... and to seek and receive
support" in that effort.

The term "armed struggle" was implied without precise definition in that
resolution and many other early ones that upheld the right of indigenous
persons to evict an occupier.

This imprecision was to change on December 3, 1982. At that time UNGA resolution 37/43
<http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm>removed any doubt or debate over the lawful entitlement of occupied people to resist
occupying forces by any and all lawful means. The resolution reaffirmed
"the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial
integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign
domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including
armed struggle".

[News] Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

Long ago, it was settled that resistance and even armed struggle against
a colonial occupation force is not just recognised under international
law but specifically endorsed.

In accordance with international humanitarian law, wars of national
liberation have been expressly embraced, through the adoption of
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (pdf
<https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume 1125/volume-1125-i-17512-english.pdf>), as a protected and essential right of occupied people everywhere.

Finding evolving vitality in humanitarian law, for decades the General
Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA) - once described as the collective conscience of the world - has noted the right of peoples to
self-determination, independence and human rights.

Indeed, as early as 1974, resolution 3314 of the UNGAprohibited
<United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)> states from "any
military occupation, however temporary".

In relevant part, the resolution not only went on to affirm the right
"to self-determination, freedom and independence [...] of peoples
forcibly deprived of that right,[...] particularly peoples under
colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination" but
noted the right of the occupied to "struggle ... and to seek and receive
support" in that effort.

The term "armed struggle" was implied without precise definition in that
resolution and many other early ones that upheld the right of indigenous
persons to evict an occupier.

This imprecision was to change on December 3, 1982. At that time UNGA resolution 37/43
<http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm>removed any doubt or debate over the lawful entitlement of occupied people to resist
occupying forces by any and all lawful means. The resolution reaffirmed
"the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial
integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign
domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including
armed struggle".

[News] Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

Depends on what you mean by armed resistance.

 

[USAF 2023]

Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

Long ago, it was settled that resistance and even armed struggle against
a colonial occupation force is not just recognised under international
law but specifically endorsed.

In accordance with international humanitarian law, wars of national
liberation have been expressly embraced, through the adoption of
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (pdf
<https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume 1125/volume-1125-i-17512-english.pdf>), as a protected and essential right of occupied people everywhere.

Finding evolving vitality in humanitarian law, for decades the General
Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA) - once described as the collective conscience of the world - has noted the right of peoples to
self-determination, independence and human rights.

Indeed, as early as 1974, resolution 3314 of the UNGAprohibited
<United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)> states from "any
military occupation, however temporary".

In relevant part, the resolution not only went on to affirm the right
"to self-determination, freedom and independence [...] of peoples
forcibly deprived of that right,[...] particularly peoples under
colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination" but
noted the right of the occupied to "struggle ... and to seek and receive
support" in that effort.

The term "armed struggle" was implied without precise definition in that
resolution and many other early ones that upheld the right of indigenous
persons to evict an occupier.

This imprecision was to change on December 3, 1982. At that time UNGA resolution 37/43
<http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm>removed any doubt or debate over the lawful entitlement of occupied people to resist
occupying forces by any and all lawful means. The resolution reaffirmed
"the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial
integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign
domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including
armed struggle".

[News] Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

Yea, right
That’s why the Rockets shot at Israel increased immediately in 2005
The Israelis have a legal right to respond

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

Long ago, it was settled that resistance and even armed struggle against
a colonial occupation force is not just recognised under international
law but specifically endorsed.

In accordance with international humanitarian law, wars of national
liberation have been expressly embraced, through the adoption of
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (pdf
<https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume 1125/volume-1125-i-17512-english.pdf>), as a protected and essential right of occupied people everywhere.

Finding evolving vitality in humanitarian law, for decades the General
Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA) - once described as the collective conscience of the world - has noted the right of peoples to
self-determination, independence and human rights.

Indeed, as early as 1974, resolution 3314 of the UNGAprohibited
<United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)> states from "any
military occupation, however temporary".

In relevant part, the resolution not only went on to affirm the right
"to self-determination, freedom and independence [...] of peoples
forcibly deprived of that right,[...] particularly peoples under
colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination" but
noted the right of the occupied to "struggle ... and to seek and receive
support" in that effort.

The term "armed struggle" was implied without precise definition in that
resolution and many other early ones that upheld the right of indigenous
persons to evict an occupier.

This imprecision was to change on December 3, 1982. At that time UNGA resolution 37/43
<http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm>removed any doubt or debate over the lawful entitlement of occupied people to resist
occupying forces by any and all lawful means. The resolution reaffirmed
"the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial
integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign
domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including
armed struggle".

[News] Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

Yea, right
That’s why the Rockets shot at Israel increased immediately in 2005
The Israelis have a legal right to respond

2005, wasn't that the year Israel left Gaza, and before the rockets forced Israel to enact a blockade?

 

[USAF 2023]

“Our Very Existence Is the Resistance”: An Hour w/ AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib & Ilhan Omar

Thank you again for your extremely ignorant post. In Rashida Tlaib remarks she condemned Rush Limbaugh for getting the Metal of Freedom? Can you please tell us why Tom Hanks ( Pres Obama I believe) and others got it?
It’s because this Honor is reserved for those NOT in the Military
BTW, Tiger Woods also got it

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are very confused.

◈ A/RES/3314 is NOT law. It merely defines "Aggression" and associate terms things.
◈ A/RES/37/43 is NOT law. It is a UN pontification describing the mood of the Assembly.

The only LAW that you cited was Protocol I. But it is a protocol attached to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is the parent document.
→
AND what does the LAW say exactly? Well, → it tells the Occupying Force (that would be Israel in the scenario you have framed) as to what is punishable under international law.

Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle
[News] Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

(COMMENT)

I refer to Article 68 • Penal legislation. V. Penalties - Death Penalty, Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV): (I recommend you read it before you go telling people they have the "right to armed struggle.)

Protected persons (in your scenario that would be the Arab Palestinians) who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (that would be the Isrealis in your scenario), but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person (in your scenario that would be the Arab Palestinians) is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power (that would be the Isrealis in your scenario) or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began (in your scenario that would be the Law of the Hashemite Kingdom).

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
SOURCE: Art 68 GCIV •

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.

Article 20

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

I'm sure you will NOT believe this, but you are encouraged to fact check it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

Palestinian Fauxtography of the Day: Baby in the Box Edition
By
David Lange
-
February 11, 2020
1338
A palestinian “journalist” has tweeted this heartbreaking photo from Gaza:



Except it isn’t – from Gaza, that is. It is from Idomeni, Greece.







Surely if Gaza was as bad as these propagandists claim, it should be easy to find an authentic photo from there, instead of constantly trying to pass of photos from other parts of the world.

Palestinian Fauxtography of the Day: Baby in the Box Edition

 

[USAF 2023]

Palestinian Fauxtography of the Day: Baby in the Box Edition
By
David Lange
-
February 11, 2020
1338
A palestinian “journalist” has tweeted this heartbreaking photo from Gaza:



Except it isn’t – from Gaza, that is. It is from Idomeni, Greece.







Surely if Gaza was as bad as these propagandists claim, it should be easy to find an authentic photo from there, instead of constantly trying to pass of photos from other parts of the world.

Palestinian Fauxtography of the Day: Baby in the Box Edition

Don’t expect a reply from Tinmore. He’s desperate !!!

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The only LAW that you cited was Protocol I. But it is a protocol attached to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is the parent document.
→
AND what does the LAW say exactly? Well, → it tells the Occupying Force (that would be Israel in the scenario you have framed) as to what is punishable under international law.

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.

 

[P F Tinmore]

UNSC Holds Meeting to Discuss Trump's 'Deal of the Century'



What a cluster fuck!

They all talk about the two state solution, They have been kicking that dead horse since 1947. There is no law demanding or even allowing the Partition of Palestine.

They wring their hands about violations of international law yet do not lift a finger to enforce it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Said is an Arabic name that means “Happy” in English. This 10-year-old child called Said sells mint in Gaza streets, especially in Al-Remal area, central Gaza City.

 

[RoccoR]

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.

(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]​

[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.
[/quote]​

◈ 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

 

[ForeverYoung436]

UNSC Holds Meeting to Discuss Trump's 'Deal of the Century'



What a cluster fuck!

They all talk about the two state solution, They have been kicking that dead horse since 1947. There is no law demanding or even allowing the Partition of Palestine.

They wring their hands about violations of international law yet do not lift a finger to enforce it.

If there will be only one state, it will be Israel anyway.

 

[USAF 2023]

UNSC Holds Meeting to Discuss Trump's 'Deal of the Century'



What a cluster fuck!

They all talk about the two state solution, They have been kicking that dead horse since 1947. There is no law demanding or even allowing the Partition of Palestine.

They wring their hands about violations of international law yet do not lift a finger to enforce it.

“ No Law ALLOWING “ the Partition of “ Palestine”.

“ International Law” Leave in peace with your neighbors
Since Tinmore is so big on “ International Law” under that Israel was supposed to have access to their religious sites. So under what “ LAW” does the PLO state Israel has no right to them? There will not be a response.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

(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.
[/quote]​

◈ 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.

 

[USAF 2023]

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.

(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]

Good. Then the Israelis aren’t violating it either

 

[USAF 2023]

Abbas, Olmert denounce Trump's peace plan in rare joint address


Abbas states he would love to resume " peace talks" where he left it with Olmert but didn't he reject all of Olmert's proposals?


" Live in Peace with your Neighbors?"

PA President Abbas: 'Millions Of Fighters' Will Take Over Jerusalem




Palestinian Authority Supreme Shari'a Judge And Abbas' Advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash: The Jews Have No Connection To Jerusalem; This Is An Imperialist Myth And Distortion Of History

 

[toastman]

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?

Are you blind? Why don’t YOU post a link proving your garbage lies about armed struggle???