Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Act of Aggression (Article 8 bisª)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) did NOT fall under an independent state. There was no such entity as the Israelis prior to May 1948.

All of that blabber does not change the fact that all of the Palestinian's actions are a response to Israeli aggression.

.
(COMMENT)

The Israelis did not plan, prepare, initiate or execute, political control or military action over a State known as "Palestine."

​

​

( ∑ )
.
I get the distinct impression that you simply do not know what the meaning of "Aggression" means relative to a prosecutorial crime. The creation of the State of Israel was realized through the act of Self-Determination.

When you say "Act of Aggression" - give us a date for that act and when the sovereign people of Palestine were injured by Israel... Be specific... So that we all can discuss it from the same perspective.

You see, I don't think you can identify an Act of Aggression perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinian People having sovereignty over a given territory. The element of the offense: "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,"

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
ª For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
As amended by resolution RC/Res.6; see Official Records of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 31 May -11 June 2010 (International Criminal Court publication, RC/11), part II.

Crime of aggression
Introduction

1. It is understood that any of the acts referred to in article 8 bis, paragraph 2, qualify as an act of aggression.​

2. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to whether the use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.​

3. The term “manifest” is an objective qualification.​

4. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to the “manifest” nature of the violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​

Elements

1. The perpetrator planned, prepared, initiated or executed an act of aggression.​

2. The perpetrator was a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of the State which committed the act of aggression.​

3. The act of aggression – the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations – was committed.​

4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that such a use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.​

5. The act of aggression, by its character, gravity and scale, constituted a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​

6. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established such a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

All of that blabber does not change the fact that all of the Palestinian's actions are a response to Israeli aggression.

Nonsense.

The religious convictions for Jew killing date back to the time of the religion's inventor.

The Hamas Charter is explicit about the ideological imperative for Jew killing.

Fatah has near daily Facebook posts vilifying Jews.

Yours is just more of the dishonest tactic of taqiyya.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) did NOT fall under an independent state. There was no such entity as the Israelis prior to May 1948.

I stand corrected. I should not have said Israel. I should have said Zionist colonial project.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Act of Aggression (Article 8 bisª)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) did NOT fall under an independent state. There was no such entity as the Israelis prior to May 1948.


.
(COMMENT)

The Israelis did not plan, prepare, initiate or execute, political control or military action over a State known as "Palestine."

View attachment 554298 View attachment 554302


​

( ∑ )
.
I get the distinct impression that you simply do not know what the meaning of "Aggression" means relative to a prosecutorial crime. The creation of the State of Israel was realized through the act of Self-Determination.

When you say "Act of Aggression" - give us a date for that act and when the sovereign people of Palestine were injured by Israel... Be specific... So that we all can discuss it from the same perspective.

You see, I don't think you can identify an Act of Aggression perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinian People having sovereignty over a given territory. The element of the offense: "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,"

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
ª For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
As amended by resolution RC/Res.6; see Official Records of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 31 May -11 June 2010 (International Criminal Court publication, RC/11), part II.

Crime of aggression
Introduction

1. It is understood that any of the acts referred to in article 8 bis, paragraph 2, qualify as an act of aggression.​

2. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to whether the use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.​

3. The term “manifest” is an objective qualification.​

4. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to the “manifest” nature of the violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​

Elements

1. The perpetrator planned, prepared, initiated or executed an act of aggression.​

2. The perpetrator was a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of the State which committed the act of aggression.​

3. The act of aggression – the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations – was committed.​

4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that such a use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.​

5. The act of aggression, by its character, gravity and scale, constituted a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​

6. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established such a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.​

Most Respectfully,
R

You draw your conclusions from false premise. The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.

 

[rylah]

That was what the British military occupation, with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket, was for.

The British occupation which was established with Arab forces?
Indeed that idiocy Arab supremacists have only themselves to blame.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The British occupation which was established with Arab forces?
Indeed that idiocy Arab supremacists have only themselves to blame.

Oh really? How many Palestinians signed up for the occupation?

 

[rylah]

Oh really? How many Palestinians signed up for the occupation?

Apparently enough to establish the British occupation.
Then demanded the land ceded to an Arabian prince from Mecca.

As said earlier - for the humiliation they have no one to blame but themselves...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Apparently enough to establish the British occupation.
Then demanded the land ceded to an Arabian prince from Mecca.

As said earlier - Arabs have no one to blame for getting humiliated but their own idiocy...

What does that have to do with the Palestinians?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Breaking Through the Bias – Confronting Anti-Palestinian Media Coverage with Dr Yara Hawari​

 

[rylah]

What does that have to do with the Palestinians?

The greedy Arab supremacists who blame every one else
for the results of their degradation?

Demanding the entire Middle East,
but can't even name the places,
must be depressing to fail at...

 

[Hollie]

You draw your conclusions from false premise. The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.

The Pallys never held any sovereign territory.

 

[Hollie]

Oh really? How many Palestinians signed up for the occupation?

False premise.

What occupation?

What sovereign territory held by Pally terrorists is occupied?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Pallys never held any sovereign territory.

Who told you that?

Link?

 

[Hollie]

Who told you that?

Link?

Why did you falsely represent the Pally squatters held sovereign territory?

What territory would that be?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why did you falsely represent the Pally squatters held sovereign territory?

What territory would that be?

Link?

Posted many times. You need to keep up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In the Midst of Destruction – From Jerusalem to Gaza: Palestine Speaks​

 

[Hollie]

Posted many times. You need to keep up.

Another of the slogans you cut and paste because you can't support your claims.

What sovereign territory was held by the Pally squatters?

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This statement is TRUE only from the perspective that the "Palestinians" never ceded territory or sovereignty because they never had any territorial sovereignty to give up.

You draw your conclusions from false premise. The Palestinians have never ceded territory or sovereignty to anyone.

(COMMENT)
.
The territory went from being under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic → to → enemy-occupied territory (1917) → to → becoming a territory under international civil administration (1920 actual)(1924 formal).

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​

​

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

SOURCE: HRI Project​

​

◈ In 1945, the international civil administration transitioned from the League of Nations Mandate System to the UN International Trustee System (Article 77) of the UN Charter.​

​

◈ In 1948 The State of Israel was declared under the right of self-determination by the National Council for the Jewish State; in coordination with the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC). Simultaneously, the Arab League launched a military assault to prevent the creation of the new state. ​

​

◈ In 1949, a series of Armistice Agreements were established between Israel and the four adjacent Arab States.​

​

◈ In 1950, the Hashemite Kingdom annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem.​

​

◈ In 1967, in response to the threat and subsequent use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip were seized.​

At no time, between 1948 and 2012 - Palestine was NOT identified as a State or a country. Nor was could a government be identified and associated with Palestine. Pursuant to UN A/RES/43/177 (1998) the designation "Palestine" was used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" (PLO). [UN Memorandum from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, dtd 11 December 2012, Subject: Issues related to Resolution 67/19 on the status of Palestine] • (See A/RES/67/19)

This entire notion that the Zionist or Jewish People, or Israel, etc etc etc, somehow deprived the Arab Palestinians of their territory or sovereignty is without merit and at best a disreputable practice in a commentary by the Hostile Arab Palestinian contingent bent on the continuation of the conflict for the various nefarious reason (including fraud in bilking donor nations out of funding). But in a more general sense, it is the dissemination of false information that is spread deliberately to deceive the readership → even when presented with documented facts placed officially as a matter of record.

Finally, the determination made to present the territorial administration of Palestine to the British Government, and the responsibility to assist the Jewish People in reconstituting the Jewish National Home was made by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers over a century ago. It was at the direction of the Allied Powers that:

◈ The Mandate Government development of self-governing institutions.​

​

◈ The Jewish Agency, in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government, was to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.​

​

◈ The Mandate Government facilitates Jewish immigration.​

​

◈ Facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews.​

The notion that there was some invisible hand of the Jewish People that was manipulating these activities is simply a ploy by the Arab Palestinian to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, to instigate a breach of the peace, or further anti-Jewish notions to weaken their resolve. But in the 100 years since these monumental decisions were made by the Allied Powers, an endless series of poor decisions on the part of Arab Palestinian leaders has strengthened Israeli determination and not the reverse.

It is a disservice to the Arab Palestinians and paints them as an undisciplined criminal activity when they openly advocacy for national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence against Israel.

Just my thoughts,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

MIT AAA | From Ferguson to Sheikh Jarrah: The Black and Palestinian Struggle for Justice​

 

[Hollie]

MIT AAA | From Ferguson to Sheikh Jarrah: The Black and Palestinian Struggle for Justice​

Anything yet on sovereign territory held by the Pallys?

Link?