Palestinians signed to join Rome Statute.

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is not a matter of propaganda. It is more the case that "many Palestinian political parties" have established an associated wing (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that has a history of operating with the aim of:

• - seriously intimidating a population, or
• - unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
• - seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
• shall be deemed to be terrorist offences:
  • (a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
    • A young woman, Dalia Lamkus was stabbed to death by an individual associated with the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization on November 10th.
  • (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
    • On November 17 2014 two Palestinian cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal entered the Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, hatchets and guns, and began opening fire and wildly slashing at the estimated 25 individuals inside.
  • (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
    • Naftali Frankel (16), Gilad Shaar (16), Eyal Yifracah (19) were hitchhiking home from attending yeshiva in Gush Etzion when they disappeared. After a three week search their bodies were found near Halhul, a short drive away from where they wer abducted. This attack is the spark that began Operation Protective Edge.
  • (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
  • (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
    • El Al hijacking attempt, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked El Al Flight 426 from Rome to Tel Aviv.
    • Dawson's Field hijackings, PFLP members attempted to hijack four aircraft simultaneously.
    • Lufthansa Flight 649, a Boeing 747-200 from Tokyo to Frankfurt, is hijacked by a group commandeered by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
  • (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
    • Recent arrests in Jordan and Israel show that Hamas and the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood are trying to smuggle weapons into Gaza and the West Bank. After Egypt's army destroyed tunnels joining Gaza and Sinai that had been lucrative smuggling paths, Hamas has been cultivating replacements.
  • (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
    • Three Palestinian suicide bombers broke through the border fence to attack the Kerem Shalom IDF post, blowing themselves up and wounding several Israeli soldiers. Hamas claimed responsibility.
    • Dimona Bombing Carried out by Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades together with Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
  • (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
  • (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
    • Dr 'Issam 'Adwan, HAMAS Director, Refugee Affairs Department, argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

This is what terrorism is all about. And the list does not include the actions that terrorize as the Palestinians engage in indiscriminate rocket fire, and tunnel building to circumvent border controls.

Indeed, how many Palestinian political parties are not called terrorists by the lying sacks of shit in Israel. Name some.

Terrorist is an Israel propaganda campaign.

(COMMENT)

The chronicling of the past practices of criminal behaviors by the Palestinians is not a matter of propaganda. It is quite different from the forms of propaganda which the Palestinians use to provoke or encourage violence as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. You can not tell me that anyone believes for a moment that the Palestinians had the right to attack the Olympic Village in Munich --- encourage Black September suicide squad attacks on the passenger terminals at Athens airport --- bomb the Pan Am office at Fiumicino airport, Rome, Italy --- seize the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan and murder two American and one Belgian diplomat, --- stage a Fatah Fedayeen terrorists amphibious attack near Nahariya, Israel, --- bombing the Rosh Ha'ir restaurant (not once but twice), --- multiple assassination attempts on the King of Jordan. These are all matters of record and and stand in stark contrast to the defense measures taken against the likes of 4000+ rockets and mortars fired at Israel 2014.

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation and colonization.

Israel's propagandists always leave that part out.

Except what they are doing is not resisting, it's inciting violence.

"Israel's propagandists"

Tinmore, you are a master at Palestinian propaganda, so you have no right to accuse others of being Israeli propagandists.

 

[Phoenall]

PF Tinmore, et al,

The link is "redirected" not "rejected."

Rocco, from your link: Request Rejected

"We have an extensive record in breaking up terrorist financing," Attorney General Ashcroft stated. "Our record on terrorist financing is clear: We will hunt down the suppliers of terrorist blood money, we will shut down these sources, and we will ensure that both terrorists and their financiers meet the same, swift, certain justice of the United States of America."​

Yet we still give money to Israel???

BTW, isn't Asscroft the dumbfuck who lost an election to a deadman?

In the end he (Ashcroft) ran for Senate re-election, but lost his seat to a dead man: Mel Carnahan, whose widow Jean stepped in as the Democrat candidate when her husband died after the ballot papers had already been printed.

BBC News AMERICAS Profile John Ashcroft​

This is too funny.

(COMMENT)

Israel is not a "state sponsor of terrorism." However, the State of Palestine supports several terrorist organizations, to include the:

• Palestinian Islamic Jihad
• Palestine Liberation Front
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command
• Popular Resistance CommitteesIslamic Jihad Movement in Palestine
• Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine
• al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades
• Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades

Whatever you may think of John Aschcroft [United States Attorney General (2001 - 2005)], doesn't change the fact that he fought against terrorists and the use of terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, how many Palestinian political parties are not called terrorists by the lying sacks of shit in Israel. Name some.

Terrorist is an Israel propaganda campaign.

What a dumb thing to say. Many countries refer to Hamas as terrorists, because they are. Has nothing to do with propaganda. You're obviously just offended because you are a Hamas supporter.
Stop whining.

What a dumb thing to say. Many countries refer to Hamas as terrorists,...​

How many countries are there and how many designate Hamas as terrorists?

More than there is that designate Israel as Terrorists

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is not a matter of propaganda. It is more the case that "many Palestinian political parties" have established an associated wing (Jihadist and Fedayeen) that has a history of operating with the aim of:

• - seriously intimidating a population, or
• - unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
• - seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation,
• shall be deemed to be terrorist offences:
  • (a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
    • A young woman, Dalia Lamkus was stabbed to death by an individual associated with the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization on November 10th.
  • (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
    • On November 17 2014 two Palestinian cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal entered the Kehilat Yaakov Synagogue in Jerusalem at 7am armed with knives, meat cleavers, hatchets and guns, and began opening fire and wildly slashing at the estimated 25 individuals inside.
  • (c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
    • Naftali Frankel (16), Gilad Shaar (16), Eyal Yifracah (19) were hitchhiking home from attending yeshiva in Gush Etzion when they disappeared. After a three week search their bodies were found near Halhul, a short drive away from where they wer abducted. This attack is the spark that began Operation Protective Edge.
  • (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
  • (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
    • El Al hijacking attempt, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked El Al Flight 426 from Rome to Tel Aviv.
    • Dawson's Field hijackings, PFLP members attempted to hijack four aircraft simultaneously.
    • Lufthansa Flight 649, a Boeing 747-200 from Tokyo to Frankfurt, is hijacked by a group commandeered by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
  • (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
    • Recent arrests in Jordan and Israel show that Hamas and the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood are trying to smuggle weapons into Gaza and the West Bank. After Egypt's army destroyed tunnels joining Gaza and Sinai that had been lucrative smuggling paths, Hamas has been cultivating replacements.
  • (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
    • Three Palestinian suicide bombers broke through the border fence to attack the Kerem Shalom IDF post, blowing themselves up and wounding several Israeli soldiers. Hamas claimed responsibility.
    • Dimona Bombing Carried out by Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades together with Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
  • (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
  • (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h).
    • Dr 'Issam 'Adwan, HAMAS Director, Refugee Affairs Department, argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

This is what terrorism is all about. And the list does not include the actions that terrorize as the Palestinians engage in indiscriminate rocket fire, and tunnel building to circumvent border controls.

Indeed, how many Palestinian political parties are not called terrorists by the lying sacks of shit in Israel. Name some.

Terrorist is an Israel propaganda campaign.

(COMMENT)

The chronicling of the past practices of criminal behaviors by the Palestinians is not a matter of propaganda. It is quite different from the forms of propaganda which the Palestinians use to provoke or encourage violence as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. You can not tell me that anyone believes for a moment that the Palestinians had the right to attack the Olympic Village in Munich --- encourage Black September suicide squad attacks on the passenger terminals at Athens airport --- bomb the Pan Am office at Fiumicino airport, Rome, Italy --- seize the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan and murder two American and one Belgian diplomat, --- stage a Fatah Fedayeen terrorists amphibious attack near Nahariya, Israel, --- bombing the Rosh Ha'ir restaurant (not once but twice), --- multiple assassination attempts on the King of Jordan. These are all matters of record and and stand in stark contrast to the defense measures taken against the likes of 4000+ rockets and mortars fired at Israel 2014.

It is what it is.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation and colonization.

Israel's propagandists always leave that part out.

But they don't have the right to attack unarmed civilians in the process, nor do they have the right to commit terrorist acts.

And you leave out the part that Israel has the right to defend itself from the acts of violence and that Palestinians will end up getting killed as a result.

 

[Phoenall]

Just a few countries. U.S. puppets, Australia, Canada,,Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the great democracies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The EU designated Hamas as a terrorist group from 2003 to 2014. In December 2014, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision.

NO IT DID NOT it just took it of the court records and so it is not seen by the court alone as a terrorist organisation. The rest of the EU and its government still say hamas is a terrorist organisation

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, they don't leave that part out. They interpret it the same way as does the Geneva Convention.

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation and colonization.

Israel's propagandists always leave that part out.

(COMMENT)

It is you that forgets the part that counts.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.[/URL]]

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, 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 is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power 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.
  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.

The Palestinian "right to resist" is tempered with the associated criminal penalties when the Palestinian intends to harm the Occupying Power:

• Art. 64 Penal legislation. I. General observations Commentary of 1958
• Art. 65 Penal legislation. II. Publication Commentary of 1958
• Art. 66 Penal legislation. III. Competent courts Commentary of 1958
• Art. 67 Penal legislation. IV. Applicable provisions Commentary of 1958
• Art. 68 Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty Commentary of 1958

You keep bringing this up like it means something. From your link https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl...t&documentId=6DB876FD94A28530C12563CD0051BEF8

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.​

The rules of occupation have benefits, obligations, and restrictions. Israel wants to exercise the benefits while thumbing its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Why should the Palestinians conform to the rules of occupation when Israel refuses to do so?

The issue of colonization is an attempt to imply that the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 --- Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (as in the settlements and jurisdiction). When, in fact, the issues are a matter of agreements that the PLO agreed; this divided authority in the 1993/1995 Oslo accords.

The UN recognizes that Palestine is under colonization and has called that to end.

2. Reaffirms 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, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978

Palestine and the ICC — Some Legal Questions

The Relevance of Oslo?

​

But there’s another potential challenge to the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israelis, stemming from the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords. Politically, Oslo may be dead, but neither Israel nor the PA has abrogated the Accords. Oslo II’s partition of the West Bank into Areas A (full Palestinian control), B (Palestinian civil control and joint Palestinian-Israeli security control), and C (full Israeli civil and security control, except over Palestinians) still orders daily life in the territories. Area C includes the settlements, their environs, and roadways.

Under Oslo II, “Israel has sole criminal jurisdiction over … offenses committed in the Territories by Israelis.” (Annex IV, art. 1(2)). Palestine does have criminal jurisdiction over Palestinians and non-Israelis in Areas A and B. (Israel has full criminal jurisdiction over Area C.) But crimes committed by Israelis in Palestinian territory are, under Oslo, solely Israel’s to investigate and try. To see why that might matter, we must go back to ICC basics.

Oslo can be considered null and void on several different levels.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture,[32] meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.[33]

Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The United States has always objected to the idea that the ICC could prosecute conduct by nationals of non-member states: treaties bind only their parties. The response to this objection is that the ICC is merely exercising jurisdiction that its member states could exercise on their own. It is axiomatic that states have jurisdiction over conduct on their own territory. If a U.S. national commits a crime in another state’s territory, the United States has no complaint if that state puts the perpetrator on trial in its own courts. In effect, states that join the ICC delegate that function to the Court.

Some U.S. commentators responded that criminal jurisdiction is not something a state can delegate as it chooses. But 122 states from every region of the world have joined the ICC, powerful evidence that customary international law no longer supports the U.S. argument, if it ever did.

The implication for ICC jurisdiction over Israeli crimes in Palestinian territory is clear. The ICC operates on criminal jurisdiction borrowed from its members; but under Oslo II, Palestine has no jurisdiction over Israelis to delegate. Whether this somewhat arcane difficulty is merely a technicality that the Court will ignore remains to be seen.

Most Respectfully,
R

As id the case with all ISLAMONAZI STOOGES if they decide a treaty is void then it is void until they want to use the contents to attack Israel. In this case the Palestinians attempted to use Oslo less than 6 months ago to force Israel's hand, and you were in full support.

Keep trying one day you will be right

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, they don't leave that part out. They interpret it the same way as does the Geneva Convention.

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation and colonization.

Israel's propagandists always leave that part out.

(COMMENT)

It is you that forgets the part that counts.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.[/URL]]

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, 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 is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power 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.
  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.

The Palestinian "right to resist" is tempered with the associated criminal penalties when the Palestinian intends to harm the Occupying Power:

• Art. 64 Penal legislation. I. General observations Commentary of 1958
• Art. 65 Penal legislation. II. Publication Commentary of 1958
• Art. 66 Penal legislation. III. Competent courts Commentary of 1958
• Art. 67 Penal legislation. IV. Applicable provisions Commentary of 1958
• Art. 68 Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty Commentary of 1958

You keep bringing this up like it means something. From your link https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl...t&documentId=6DB876FD94A28530C12563CD0051BEF8

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.​

The rules of occupation have benefits, obligations, and restrictions. Israel wants to exercise the benefits while thumbing its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Why should the Palestinians conform to the rules of occupation when Israel refuses to do so?

The issue of colonization is an attempt to imply that the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 --- Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (as in the settlements and jurisdiction). When, in fact, the issues are a matter of agreements that the PLO agreed; this divided authority in the 1993/1995 Oslo accords.

The UN recognizes that Palestine is under colonization and has called that to end.

2. Reaffirms 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, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978

Palestine and the ICC — Some Legal Questions

The Relevance of Oslo?

​

But there’s another potential challenge to the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israelis, stemming from the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords. Politically, Oslo may be dead, but neither Israel nor the PA has abrogated the Accords. Oslo II’s partition of the West Bank into Areas A (full Palestinian control), B (Palestinian civil control and joint Palestinian-Israeli security control), and C (full Israeli civil and security control, except over Palestinians) still orders daily life in the territories. Area C includes the settlements, their environs, and roadways.

Under Oslo II, “Israel has sole criminal jurisdiction over … offenses committed in the Territories by Israelis.” (Annex IV, art. 1(2)). Palestine does have criminal jurisdiction over Palestinians and non-Israelis in Areas A and B. (Israel has full criminal jurisdiction over Area C.) But crimes committed by Israelis in Palestinian territory are, under Oslo, solely Israel’s to investigate and try. To see why that might matter, we must go back to ICC basics.

Oslo can be considered null and void on several different levels.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture,[32] meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.[33]

Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The United States has always objected to the idea that the ICC could prosecute conduct by nationals of non-member states: treaties bind only their parties. The response to this objection is that the ICC is merely exercising jurisdiction that its member states could exercise on their own. It is axiomatic that states have jurisdiction over conduct on their own territory. If a U.S. national commits a crime in another state’s territory, the United States has no complaint if that state puts the perpetrator on trial in its own courts. In effect, states that join the ICC delegate that function to the Court.

Some U.S. commentators responded that criminal jurisdiction is not something a state can delegate as it chooses. But 122 states from every region of the world have joined the ICC, powerful evidence that customary international law no longer supports the U.S. argument, if it ever did.

The implication for ICC jurisdiction over Israeli crimes in Palestinian territory is clear. The ICC operates on criminal jurisdiction borrowed from its members; but under Oslo II, Palestine has no jurisdiction over Israelis to delegate. Whether this somewhat arcane difficulty is merely a technicality that the Court will ignore remains to be seen.

Most Respectfully,
R

As id the case with all ISLAMONAZI STOOGES if they decide a treaty is void then it is void until they want to use the contents to attack Israel. In this case the Palestinians attempted to use Oslo less than 6 months ago to force Israel's hand, and you were in full support.

Keep trying one day you will be right

What instance are you referring to?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, they don't leave that part out. They interpret it the same way as does the Geneva Convention.

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation and colonization.

Israel's propagandists always leave that part out.

(COMMENT)

It is you that forgets the part that counts.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.[/URL]]

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, 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 is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power 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.
  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.

The Palestinian "right to resist" is tempered with the associated criminal penalties when the Palestinian intends to harm the Occupying Power:

• Art. 64 Penal legislation. I. General observations Commentary of 1958
• Art. 65 Penal legislation. II. Publication Commentary of 1958
• Art. 66 Penal legislation. III. Competent courts Commentary of 1958
• Art. 67 Penal legislation. IV. Applicable provisions Commentary of 1958
• Art. 68 Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty Commentary of 1958

You keep bringing this up like it means something. From your link https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl...t&documentId=6DB876FD94A28530C12563CD0051BEF8

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.​

The rules of occupation have benefits, obligations, and restrictions. Israel wants to exercise the benefits while thumbing its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Why should the Palestinians conform to the rules of occupation when Israel refuses to do so?

The issue of colonization is an attempt to imply that the General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 --- Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (as in the settlements and jurisdiction). When, in fact, the issues are a matter of agreements that the PLO agreed; this divided authority in the 1993/1995 Oslo accords.

The UN recognizes that Palestine is under colonization and has called that to end.

2. Reaffirms 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, particularly armed struggle;

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978

Palestine and the ICC — Some Legal Questions

The Relevance of Oslo?

​

But there’s another potential challenge to the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israelis, stemming from the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords. Politically, Oslo may be dead, but neither Israel nor the PA has abrogated the Accords. Oslo II’s partition of the West Bank into Areas A (full Palestinian control), B (Palestinian civil control and joint Palestinian-Israeli security control), and C (full Israeli civil and security control, except over Palestinians) still orders daily life in the territories. Area C includes the settlements, their environs, and roadways.

Under Oslo II, “Israel has sole criminal jurisdiction over … offenses committed in the Territories by Israelis.” (Annex IV, art. 1(2)). Palestine does have criminal jurisdiction over Palestinians and non-Israelis in Areas A and B. (Israel has full criminal jurisdiction over Area C.) But crimes committed by Israelis in Palestinian territory are, under Oslo, solely Israel’s to investigate and try. To see why that might matter, we must go back to ICC basics.

Oslo can be considered null and void on several different levels.

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident.

Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against the aggressive use of force, genocide and other crimes against humanity, piracy, hostilities directed at civilian population, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery and torture,[32] meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.[33]

Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The United States has always objected to the idea that the ICC could prosecute conduct by nationals of non-member states: treaties bind only their parties. The response to this objection is that the ICC is merely exercising jurisdiction that its member states could exercise on their own. It is axiomatic that states have jurisdiction over conduct on their own territory. If a U.S. national commits a crime in another state’s territory, the United States has no complaint if that state puts the perpetrator on trial in its own courts. In effect, states that join the ICC delegate that function to the Court.

Some U.S. commentators responded that criminal jurisdiction is not something a state can delegate as it chooses. But 122 states from every region of the world have joined the ICC, powerful evidence that customary international law no longer supports the U.S. argument, if it ever did.

The implication for ICC jurisdiction over Israeli crimes in Palestinian territory is clear. The ICC operates on criminal jurisdiction borrowed from its members; but under Oslo II, Palestine has no jurisdiction over Israelis to delegate. Whether this somewhat arcane difficulty is merely a technicality that the Court will ignore remains to be seen.

Most Respectfully,
R

As id the case with all ISLAMONAZI STOOGES if they decide a treaty is void then it is void until they want to use the contents to attack Israel. In this case the Palestinians attempted to use Oslo less than 6 months ago to force Israel's hand, and you were in full support.

Keep trying one day you will be right

What instance are you referring to?

When the P.A. decided to fold and leave the running of the west bank in Israel's hands. I do believe the UN judges warned them against doing so as they would lose any and all claims to the sovereignty of the west bank

 

[montelatici]

Just a few countries. U.S. puppets, Australia, Canada,,Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the great democracies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The EU designated Hamas as a terrorist group from 2003 to 2014. In December 2014, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision.

NO IT DID NOT it just took it of the court records and so it is not seen by the court alone as a terrorist organisation. The rest of the EU and its government still say hamas is a terrorist organisation

You take a look at the "court records" you lying buffoon.

" A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.

The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet",judges found."

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, Phoenall, et al,

There is confusion here between a "legal action" taken pursuant to law (complete with loop holes and flaws) and the political decisions taken (pursuant to lawful authority).

• BTW: The "court record" is in French only. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2014. Hamas v Council of the European Union --- Case T-400/10.

Just a few countries. U.S. puppets, Australia, Canada,,Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the great democracies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The EU designated Hamas as a terrorist group from 2003 to 2014. In December 2014, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision.

NO IT DID NOT it just took it of the court records and so it is not seen by the court alone as a terrorist organisation. The rest of the EU and its government still say hamas is a terrorist organisation

You take a look at the "court records" you lying buffoon.

" A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.

The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet",judges found."

(OBSERVATION)

General Court of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 178/14 Luxembourg, 17 December 2014
Hamas v Council of the European Union.
Case T-400/10.

(COMMENT)

There are two aspects to this case. One is the technical aspect on the judicial side of the equation. The other is the executive side of the issue in which the common position is expressed by the political leadership. These two aspects are roughly equivalent to the Judicial Branch of Government and the Executive Branch of Government.

The General Court of the European Union (what "montelatici" call the "top court") ruled on the technical evaluation of the evidence openly used in the EU on which the decision was based. It did not rule on the validity of the decision --- not did it rule on the reality of HAMAS as a terrorist group.

• The Court stresses that those annulments, on fundamental procedural grounds, do not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group within the meaning of the Common Position.

This is a very crafty attempt by HAMAS to make an end run around the UN Security Council Resolutions 1373 and Resolution 1390 which require member nations to disrupt terrorist financing; implemented under The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism (CT) Strategy was adopted by Member States on 8 September 2006. The strategy, in the form of a resolution and an annexed Plan of Action (A/RES/60/288). Both the EU and the General Court understand the goal and objective of HAMAS; as well as, the political intention of the EU counter-terrorism (CT) policy. But the EU CT policy is not a stand-alone program. It is politically interlocked with the UN Global CT Strategy.

EU foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini releases statement saying that the EU upholds the "Quartet principles," [UN Security Council Resolution 1850 (2008)] that bans engagement with Hamas until it forswears terrorism.

In the mean time, and understanding the importance of keeping a freeze on HAMAS assets, the General Court gave the EU time to (two months) to take follow-on action.

Make no mistake, HAMAS is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, Phoenall, et al,

There is confusion here between a "legal action" taken pursuant to law (complete with loop holes and flaws) and the political decisions taken (pursuant to lawful authority).

• BTW: The "court record" is in French only. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2014. Hamas v Council of the European Union --- Case T-400/10.

Just a few countries. U.S. puppets, Australia, Canada,,Israel, Japan, New Zealand and the great democracies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The EU designated Hamas as a terrorist group from 2003 to 2014. In December 2014, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision.

NO IT DID NOT it just took it of the court records and so it is not seen by the court alone as a terrorist organisation. The rest of the EU and its government still say hamas is a terrorist organisation

You take a look at the "court records" you lying buffoon.

" A top court of the European Union has annulled the bloc's decision to keep the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas on a list of terrorist groups.

The decision had been based not on an examination of Hamas' actions, but on "factual imputations derived from the press and the internet",judges found."

(OBSERVATION)

General Court of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 178/14 Luxembourg, 17 December 2014
Hamas v Council of the European Union.
Case T-400/10.

(COMMENT)

There are two aspects to this case. One is the technical aspect on the judicial side of the equation. The other is the executive side of the issue in which the common position is expressed by the political leadership. These two aspects are roughly equivalent to the Judicial Branch of Government and the Executive Branch of Government.

The General Court of the European Union (what "montelatici" call the "top court") ruled on the technical evaluation of the evidence openly used in the EU on which the decision was based. It did not rule on the validity of the decision --- not did it rule on the reality of HAMAS as a terrorist group.

• The Court stresses that those annulments, on fundamental procedural grounds, do not imply any substantive assessment of the question of the classification of Hamas as a terrorist group within the meaning of the Common Position.

This is a very crafty attempt by HAMAS to make an end run around the UN Security Council Resolutions 1373 and Resolution 1390 which require member nations to disrupt terrorist financing; implemented under The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism (CT) Strategy was adopted by Member States on 8 September 2006. The strategy, in the form of a resolution and an annexed Plan of Action (A/RES/60/288). Both the EU and the General Court understand the goal and objective of HAMAS; as well as, the political intention of the EU counter-terrorism (CT) policy. But the EU CT policy is not a stand-alone program. It is politically interlocked with the UN Global CT Strategy.

EU foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini releases statement saying that the EU upholds the "Quartet principles," [UN Security Council Resolution 1850 (2008)] that bans engagement with Hamas until it forswears terrorism.

In the mean time, and understanding the importance of keeping a freeze on HAMAS assets, the General Court gave the EU time to (two months) to take follow-on action.

Make no mistake, HAMAS is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia). The court did not make the suggestion that the information or reasoning was invalid or fraudulent; merely not from the "national competent authorities."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia).

Most Respectfully,
R

According to the “technical issue” argument, Hamas was removed from the list because the evidence used to place the organization on the list did not meet European standards.

EU Decision on removal of Hamas from terror list is legal not political - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post​

From what I can tell, the designation was based on news reports out of Israel.

Did the EU designate Hamas as terrorists out of the blue or was Israel there lobbying for that designation without Hamas there to defend its position?

The same could be said of the US's designation.

 

[toastman]

Tinmore, give me an example of a group(s) that YOU would consider an Islamist terrorist organization.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore, give me an example of a group(s) that YOU would consider an Islamist terrorist organization.

IRA, ANC, Tamil, FARC,...

 

[toastman]

I said Islamist. Not Irish, Colombian etc...

 

[P F Tinmore]

I said Islamist. Not Irish, Colombian etc...

Why just Islamist? Are you trying to promote an agenda?

OK, any of the groups illegally interfering with Syria's internal affairs.

 

[toastman]

I said Islamist. Not Irish, Colombian etc...

Why just Islamist? Are you trying to promote an agenda?

OK, any of the groups illegally interfering with Syria's internal affairs.

No, it was just a question. Give me a name of a known group that you would consider a terrorist organization.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I said Islamist. Not Irish, Colombian etc...

Why just Islamist? Are you trying to promote an agenda?

OK, any of the groups illegally interfering with Syria's internal affairs.

No, it was just a question. Give me a name of a known group that you would consider a terrorist organization.

ISIS, Al Quida, IDF,...

 

[theliq]

I said Islamist. Not Irish, Colombian etc...

Why just Islamist? Are you trying to promote an agenda?

OK, any of the groups illegally interfering with Syria's internal affairs.

No, it was just a question. Give me a name of a known group that you would consider a terrorist organization.

Zionists first and last Toastie.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, actually NOT.

My money says that Israel was there prodding them to do so.

(COMMENT)

There is no reason to assume this.

The bottom line is that the designation was based on bogus information.

(COMMENT)

Not bogus information (planted, fabricated or fraudulent). It was open source information outside the normal "concretely examined and confirmed in decisions of national competent authorities." This type of information they are describing is used everyday in this very discussion group.

What the court wanted to see was police reports, security services assessments, and intelligence analysis of the events used to substantiate the determinations made.

For instance, your conjecture that the material used was "bogus" (meaning: not genuine or true) is not substantiated or collaborated by multiple independent sources. The court wanted to see evidentiary material by "national competent authorities" (not wikipedia). The court did not make the suggestion that the information or reasoning was invalid or fraudulent; merely not from the "national competent authorities."

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm confused Rocco,in your last sentence above,you were referring to the IDF of course. Respectfully Steve