What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
62,496
Reaction score
2,909
Points
1,815
There was no binding instrument or any such International Law before the events of 1948.
OK, but they still cannot return. That is a today problem. Some of these things, like state succession, are from the Hague Convention of 1907. You just weren't paying attention. Here is another interpretation.

 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,891
Reaction score
2,995
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes I watched this video when you first posted it. But there is a flaw in the log.


PART 3. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 22
Nullum crimen sine lege
  1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
  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.
  3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.
You, the International Courts and Tribunals, or the Israeli Supreme Court can not just read something into the law that was not there. Read the bold portion carefully. And then tell me what citation in the Hague Regulation of 1907 applies to the plaintiff's claim.

There was no binding instrument or any such International Law before the events of 1948.
OK, but they still cannot return. That is a today problem. Some of these things, like state succession, are from the Hague Convention of 1907. You just weren't paying attention. Here is another interpretation.

(COMMENT)

The Professor is correct. The Israeli Supreme Court did make a rule, but it was made in 2006. And from that ruling, I'll give you a couple of excerpts: (
I went and looked it up for you.)

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said:
◈ More specifically, according to the Court, the following are applicable to the current armed conflict: the 1907 Hague Convention IV and Regulations, the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the customary provisions of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1977).

◈ Although Israel is not a party to the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the Court determined that the principle according to which civilians who participate directly in hostilities are not protected (Article 51(3) of the Additional Protocol) is mandatory customary law. That is, when a civilian fulfills the role of a combatant, he loses the protection afforded to civilians. Such a civilian is exposed to the dangers of an attack as is a combatant, but is not entitled to the rights afforded a combatant (e.g. recognition as a "prisoner of war"). According to Article 51(3) of the First Protocol, “civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.”

◈ In the final analysis, the Israel Supreme Court adopted an interpretation of customary international law governing international armed conflicts, ruling that the protection afforded to civilians from military attacks is not extended to terrorists who directly participate in hostilities, this for the duration of such participation. An attack on such a civilian, even if such an attack results in death, is permissible, but only if a less harmful means (detention) cannot be employed, and subject to the condition that any incidental harm caused to innocent civilians meets the requirement of proportionality.

SOURCE: Israel Supreme Court decision on targeting terrorist operatives20 Dec 2006

Yes, the Court did say what she said. But the court did not say that it supersedes
Article 24 - Non-retroactivity (ratione personae)(supra Posting #1676). In fact, the ruling says that ALL the general principles of criminal law apply. And that works in several more dramatically opposing ways than the notations I've mentioned.

Now here is something tricky you should think about. → If International Human Rights Law applies, then the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) applies to actions since it went into force: 23 March 1976. The territory formerly under the Mandate - Palestine, was under the expanse from the Jordan River, came under the Trusteeship System (Article77 UN Carter) - west to the Mediterranean Sea; less Israel (Independent since 15 May 1948). This means that Article 12(3) CCPR comes into play.


International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) said:
Article 12
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

SOURCE: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)

It also means that the limitation of Article 49(2) "outside the bounds of the occupied territory" also applies. To the best of my knowledge, Israel did not facilitate the evacuation of Arab Palestinians outside the territorial demarcations (to another territory). Is

Fourth Geneva Convention said:
ARTICLE 49 [ • Link • ]

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

And the ruling implies that Israel should follow the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Most of the individuals claiming the Right to Return are descendants and not covered by the definition of Refugees.

All these questions and more are issues that need to be addressed before a Right of Return Programs could even be considered.

(SIDEBAR)

The esteemed speakers in these snapshot videos seldom discuss Issues such as this in a way that does not erode public confidence. While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) still has some credibility and confidence that remains with the public, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has exactly the opposite. They simply do not hold the trust in the public to act in accordance with the cannons and ethics that render the appearance of professional responsibility.

In the case filed by the State of Palestine, which routinely violates the International Covent against the incitement to violence and the financing of terrorist activities. It appears to be the case that the Court itself is adding and abetting the HAMAS
(Islamic Resistance Movement) which has been designated by the members of the European Union as a terrorist activity.

The Court → in its decisions making process found that its "territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem." They have already made a decision and are just going through the motions to give the appearance of a valid judicial process. The entire investigative process and the procedures of the court are flawed when they openly consider HAMAS as a victim as opposed to what they really are.

Be very cautious of what confidence you place in the ICC. They are likely to set the conditions for a necessary military resolution that will not be pretty.

1611604183365.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
62,496
Reaction score
2,909
Points
1,815

The Role of Decolonial Feminism in the Fight for Palestine with Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi​


 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
62,496
Reaction score
2,909
Points
1,815
Lara Elborno and Michael Schirtzer join The Electronic Intifada Podcast to talk about the first few days of the US-backed Israeli attacks on Gaza

 
OP
P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
62,496
Reaction score
2,909
Points
1,815

Why The Media Can’t Tell The Truth On Israel & Palestine | The Bastani Factor​


 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top