- Dec 6, 2009
- Reaction score
Whose post are you responding to?RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: National Rights?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: When you say → the Denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights! Are we talking about domestic law? (National Law 'vs' International Law). A/RES/37/43 of 3 December 1982 Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination is NOT Binding Law. Article 2(7) of the UN Charter prohibits the United Nations from intervening 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; with the exception of measures under Chapter VII.
Article 3 - International Boundary • Peace is hereby established between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of IsraelYou have to follow the Jordan-Israel International Boundary closely. THEN tell me where the State of Palestine is?
Boundary is Delimited ANNEX 1(a)
(COMMENT)Israel is outside interference and alien domination,
Point #1: You did not show the universally accepted definition of " inalienable national rights."
Point #2: A/RES/37/43 of 3 December 1982 Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination was adopted in late 1982. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute. (Non-retroactivity Article 24 • pg 14 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court • ratione personae)
Point #3: Are you claiming that the Palestinian Government (such that it is) Governments does not recognize the Right to Self-Determination and Independence of all peoples in Israel to establish Israel? IF so, THEN I agree! ... The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) → from the very time of the USCOP recommendation adopted by the UN → has attempted to override the Independence through the Right of Self-Determination by the National Council for the Jewish State (elected by the Jewish body in the former Mandate for Palestine). So, yes I agree, the HoAP is NOT following the concept of self-determination.
Point #4: The Arab Palestinians are NOT under Israeli colonial and foreign domination and Israeli subjugation. The Arab Palestinians rejected participation in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
◈ Between 1918 and 1920, the Territory was under Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).◈ Between 1920 and 1948, the Territory was under the Administration of the Mandate for Palestine.◈ Between 1949 and 1967, the territory, less the Gaza Strip, West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and Jordan, were under the effective control or sovereignty of members of the Arab League.◈ Between August 1988 and the present, the HM King of Jordan abandons all sovereignty over the West Bank territory; relinquishing it into the effective control of the Israelis. No Arab Palestinian government established.Point #5: A/RES/37/43 does not define the scope and nature of the alleged expansionist activity.
Point #6: The State of Israel has not in the past and does not now, have a specific policy or program that directs attacks by bombardment which treats (as a single military objective) a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited. (Rule 13. Area Bombardment)
◈ Rule 23. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.◈ Rule 24. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.◈ Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.The HoAP, as a consistent tactic, uses densely populated areas and failed to remove civilian persons and objects under its control, from rocket and mortar launch sites, as well a munitions storage, and other high-value targets, as a means to shield offensive operations against Israeli sovereign territory.
It is my layman's opinion that the International Criminal Court (ICC), both the Prosecutor's Office and ICC-01/18-143 05 February 2021 | Pre-Trial Chamber I | Decision
that contributes (by means of legal support and official endorsement) to the furtherance and encouragement of one or more offenses as set forth and elaborated within the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts by actively assisting (though malfeasance) 'Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem' (Item 9, Group II, List of persons, groups, and entities, 8 January 2019, COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2019/25).
The ICC, with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of an offense as set forth 19 international legal instruments with emphasis on:
◈ 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism◈ 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings◈ 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages◈ 1949 Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention • Offenses Solely Intended to Harm the Occupying Power
The Prosecutor's Office and the Pre-Trial Chamber have brought induced a lack of confidence in the court, a level of politicization that brings with it a measure of discredit and distrust in the court.
Just One Man's Opinion,