RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
PREFACE: You simply do not pay any attention.
BLUF: Everyone has the right to self-defense. There is no dispute over that issue. The question revolves around Who is defending against whom? Does this dispute have the components of:
Prior to the Six-Day War, there was a UN Peacekeeping Force that was ejected. (Still a moment of deliberation.)
After the Six-Day War, The Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, 1967, was set in place.
SELF-DEFENSE:
(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-defense: self-defense 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-defense 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 Conflicts (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-defense 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’.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law • 3 ed, Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp549
.
1. The State of Israel never attacked any authority known as Palestine, as defined by:
When the Arab Palestinians refuse such measures, THEN there is no instance in which "self-defense" is a legitimate claim as a means to prolong a conflict.
.
Most Respectfully,
R
SUBTOPIC: What is the Law?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
PREFACE: You simply do not pay any attention.
BLUF: Everyone has the right to self-defense. There is no dispute over that issue. The question revolves around Who is defending against whom? Does this dispute have the components of:
◈. Being instant,
◈. Being overwhelming,
◈. Leaving no choice of means,
◈. Having no moment for deliberation,
Prior to the Six-Day War, there was a UN Peacekeeping Force that was ejected. (Still a moment of deliberation.)
After the Six-Day War, The Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, 1967, was set in place.
◈. No peace with Israel,
◈. No recognition of Israel,
◈. No negotiations,
SELF-DEFENSE:
(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-defense: self-defense 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-defense 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 Conflicts (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-defense 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’.
SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law • 3 ed, Copyright ˝ 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp549
.(COMMENT)
.
1. The State of Israel never attacked any authority known as Palestine, as defined by:
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
2. The Six-Day War (June 1967) was a conflict between the forces of Israel and the forces of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It was NOT a conflict with the Arab Palestinians.
3. The disputes over the territories known as the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip were resolved by Peace Treaties between Israel and the States of Jordan and Egypt.
( ∑ )
These are but just a few reasons as to why the Claim of Self-Defense by the Arab Palestinians is unfounded. There is not now, nor has there ever been, since the 1949 Armistice Agreements, a time when the Arab Palestinians were denied the opportunity to some non-violent form of conflict resolution. There has been, continuously, a forum of one sort or another that offered the Arab Palestinian consideration through negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their choice.When the Arab Palestinians refuse such measures, THEN there is no instance in which "self-defense" is a legitimate claim as a means to prolong a conflict.
.
Most Respectfully,
R
