- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,706
- 4,168
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,661
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I'm confused.
(QUESTION)
Is General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) actual law?
When did it go into force?
Most Respectfully,
R
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,706
- 4,168
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,664
The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I'm confused.
(QUESTION)
Is General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) actual law?
When did it go into force?
Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed!I'm confused.
Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,706
- 4,168
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,665
The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I'm confused.
(QUESTION)
Is General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) actual law?
When did it go into force?
Most Respectfully,
R
You should watch this video. It could answer many of your questions.
The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I'm confused.
(QUESTION)
Is General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) actual law?
When did it go into force?
Most Respectfully,
R
You should watch this video. It could answer many of your questions.
Indeed, you should watch the video. Indeed, It does nothing but waste the viewers time. Why would you expect others to waste their time?
You know that GA opinions are, indeed, opinions, right?
The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 1 | SOAS
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: I'm confused.
(QUESTION)
Is General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) actual law?
When did it go into force?
Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed!I'm confused.
Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
Indeed. No it was not.
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
(REQUEST)
Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
P F Tinmore said:Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
(REQUEST)
Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,706
- 4,168
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,669
Posted so many that people accuse me of spamming.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
P F Tinmore said:Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
(REQUEST)
Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
Most Respectfully,
R
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,706
- 4,168
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,670
Palestinians: In a two state solution, do you expect the right of return to Israel?
Indeed.Posted so many that people accuse me of spamming.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
P F Tinmore said:Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
(REQUEST)
Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
Most Respectfully,
R
There is no right of return.Palestinians: In a two state solution, do you expect the right of return to Israel?
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.Posted so many that people accuse me of spamming.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
P F Tinmore said:Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
(REQUEST)
Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
You never give a citation. International law has a citation, an ICC Article, an ICJ Judgment, a Council Refedrncde, A UN Resolution, or an International Convention Name.
Just Cite the Original Source Law that was in force or is in force, so we all can examine it. But don't give us another worthless video. Just a one-line citation. I promise no one will accuse you of spamming.
Most Respectfully,
R
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,706
- 4,168
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,674
Perhaps this will answer some of your questions.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
P F Tinmore said:Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
(REQUEST)
Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinian Right of Return: The 72nd Anniversary of UNGA Resolution 194 - Session 2 | SOAS
Confirmation there is no right of return.Perhaps this will answer some of your questions.RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: You make these claims and do not provide even the hint of the original source.
P F Tinmore said:Resolution 194 was based on applicable international law.
(REQUEST)
Either state the original authoritative source having the force or law, or admit you don't know of any such source or when the original source went into force.
Most Respectfully,
R
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Let me say upfront: I am not an attorney, and I do not practice law. This is my opinion.
BLUF: Well, hell. Another lengthy video. That tells me that you really don't know the answer.
This is international and is binding:
PART 3.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 24 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Non-retroactivity ratione personae
(SHORT ANSWER)
NO! UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/194 (III) → IS NOT binding on the membership and is NOT International Law.
(COMMENT)
The Professor of Law is either relying upon pre-WWI (The Great War) unwritten but (assumed to be ) customary law. - OR - The Professor is relying on post-1948 War (NEW) Law of which the two centerpieces are;
These references come well after the 1967 Six-Day War and the Yom Kipper sneak attack of 1973. One of these is nearly a decades AFTER the 1948 events and one comes a half-century later.
Now there is another issue here that needs to be expressed.
The Professor (in his opening monolog) acknowledged that the initial hostilities began in 1947 and that approximately 300,000 Arab Palestinians were displaced - as he put- Forceably Expelled or Taken Flight. And that the pre-15 May 1948 was a Non-International Armed Conflict (as he says a Civil War). That is a conflict within one jurisdiction - outside the authority of the Charter (supra).
As another Challenge, the Professor is salting the discussion with Customary Law in the Western sense. That is, for the purposes of this discussion, the Customary Rule of Law should be of Middle Eastern origin and NOT Western European or the practice of Commonwealth Nation and former territories of the British Empire. The customary practices of Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia Arabia and North Africa are much different.
While the western late 20th Century culture may be much more liberal on the side of the Plaintiff (Arab Palestinians) the customary Regional combatants (supra) is much different.
The Ottoman Empire reached all of North Africa, down the Red Sea to Yemen, and up and into Greece, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Not to mention the entirety of the territories all the way to the Perian frontier. Explain to me just what the Customary Rule of Law was pertaining to war reparations, Right-of-Return once expelled, returning private property and territory to the defeated or displaced. The entire Arab/Bedouin Irregular Force on the side of the British Empire looted every city, train, caravan, and fortuitous they destroyed. How did Customary and Regional Law apply?
The presentation was laced with all sorts of "appeal to" fairness, justice, and equality. Let's be reasonable here. What really was the historical application to these Arab Palestinian demands be if it were adjudicated under Arab Rules of the late 19th Century? Let's get real!
(≈Ω)
You still did not answer the question. What is the original source law (binding or International, and enforceable) on which A/RES/194 (III) is based.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Let me say upfront: I am not an attorney, and I do not practice law. This is my opinion.
BLUF: Well, hell. Another lengthy video. That tells me that you really don't know the answer.
(REMEMBERING)P F Tinmore said:Perhaps this will answer some of your questions.
This is international and is binding:
PART 3.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 24 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Non-retroactivity ratione personae
- No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.
- In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.
(SHORT ANSWER)
NO! UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/194 (III) → IS NOT binding on the membership and is NOT International Law.
(COMMENT)
The Professor of Law is either relying upon pre-WWI (The Great War) unwritten but (assumed to be ) customary law. - OR - The Professor is relying on post-1948 War (NEW) Law of which the two centerpieces are;
These references come well after the 1967 Six-Day War and the Yom Kipper sneak attack of 1973. One of these is nearly a decades AFTER the 1948 events and one comes a half-century later.
Now there is another issue here that needs to be expressed.
United Nations Charter, Chapter I:
Purposes and Principles
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following PrinciplesNothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
The Professor (in his opening monolog) acknowledged that the initial hostilities began in 1947 and that approximately 300,000 Arab Palestinians were displaced - as he put- Forceably Expelled or Taken Flight. And that the pre-15 May 1948 was a Non-International Armed Conflict (as he says a Civil War). That is a conflict within one jurisdiction - outside the authority of the Charter (supra).
As another Challenge, the Professor is salting the discussion with Customary Law in the Western sense. That is, for the purposes of this discussion, the Customary Rule of Law should be of Middle Eastern origin and NOT Western European or the practice of Commonwealth Nation and former territories of the British Empire. The customary practices of Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia Arabia and North Africa are much different.
While the western late 20th Century culture may be much more liberal on the side of the Plaintiff (Arab Palestinians) the customary Regional combatants (supra) is much different.
◈ Is it customary for Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia Arabia and North Africa to offer compensation or restitution such as outlined in A/RES/194 (III)?
◈ Is it customary for Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia Arabia and North Africa to require victorious forces to return capture territory as outlined in A/RES/194 (III)?
The Ottoman Empire reached all of North Africa, down the Red Sea to Yemen, and up and into Greece, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Not to mention the entirety of the territories all the way to the Perian frontier. Explain to me just what the Customary Rule of Law was pertaining to war reparations, Right-of-Return once expelled, returning private property and territory to the defeated or displaced. The entire Arab/Bedouin Irregular Force on the side of the British Empire looted every city, train, caravan, and fortuitous they destroyed. How did Customary and Regional Law apply?
The presentation was laced with all sorts of "appeal to" fairness, justice, and equality. Let's be reasonable here. What really was the historical application to these Arab Palestinian demands be if it were adjudicated under Arab Rules of the late 19th Century? Let's get real!
(≈Ω)
You still did not answer the question. What is the original source law (binding or International, and enforceable) on which A/RES/194 (III) is based.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,706
- 4,168
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,677
I take exception to the term civil war. I think it is one of those terms that people have heard a gazillion times so they assume it to be true. It is not. A civil war would be two groups of Palestinians with differences. That isn't what happened. It was an attack on the Palestinians by foreign colonial settlers.And that the pre-15 May 1948 was a Non-International Armed Conflict (as he says a Civil War).
That and the fact that the Nakba and the 1948 war were two different things change a lot.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,706
- 4,168
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #1,678
The video I posted addressed those questions. They were addressed in the first 20 minutes so you won't have to watch the whole thing.You still did not answer the question. What is the original source law (binding or International, and enforceable) on which A/RES/194 (III) is based.
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Let me say upfront: I am not an attorney, and I do not practice law. This is my opinion.
BLUF: Yes I understood what he said. He does not cite an actual original source.
And as I explained in my Posting. The Professor's explanation is NOT an answer. In fact, in a round-about way, the Professor acknowledges that point. There was no binding instrument or any such International Law before the events of 1948. It nearly all comes from assumptions of Law that come well after the events. Most of what he says - that is binding or law comes after these specific events.
The claims made by the Arab Palestinian come from Western European Customary practice and the practice of Commonwealth Nation and former territories of the British Empire. And that cannot be used because it is not based on or derivative of the Customary practice of the Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia, Arabia, and North Africa.
I believe you and the Professor do a grave disservice to the Arab Palestinian cause and International Law by making such claims.
Most Respectfully,
R
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Let me say upfront: I am not an attorney, and I do not practice law. This is my opinion.
BLUF: Yes I understood what he said. He does not cite an actual original source.
(COMMENT)The video I posted addressed those questions. They were addressed in the first 20 minutes so you won't have to watch the whole thing.You still did not answer the question. What is the original source law (binding or International, and enforceable) on which A/RES/194 (III) is based.
And as I explained in my Posting. The Professor's explanation is NOT an answer. In fact, in a round-about way, the Professor acknowledges that point. There was no binding instrument or any such International Law before the events of 1948. It nearly all comes from assumptions of Law that come well after the events. Most of what he says - that is binding or law comes after these specific events.
The claims made by the Arab Palestinian come from Western European Customary practice and the practice of Commonwealth Nation and former territories of the British Empire. And that cannot be used because it is not based on or derivative of the Customary practice of the Middle Eastern combatants and that of Warlords of Asia, Arabia, and North Africa.
I believe you and the Professor do a grave disservice to the Arab Palestinian cause and International Law by making such claims.
Most Respectfully,
R
Nice duck.The video I posted addressed those questions. They were addressed in the first 20 minutes so you won't have to watch the whole thing.You still did not answer the question. What is the original source law (binding or International, and enforceable) on which A/RES/194 (III) is based.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 94
- Views
- 913
- Replies
- 126
- Views
- 837
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 173
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 79
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 7K
- Views
- 49K
- Replies
- 47
- Views
- 240
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-