I included the UN Rapporteur stating those same legal statements.
Its the law.
Your opinion is worthless here.
Hamas releases 3 hostages amid uncertainty over ceasefire deal
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
Its the law.
Your opinion is worthless here.
He's a Dr. He's never wrong.. watched too many episodes of House lol.
So you have no official international statute that you can provide. As I suspected. Her opinion does not make it law.
Last edited:
The job of the rapporteur is to analyze events with respect to international law.: Albanese holds a law degree with honours from the University of Pisa and a Master of Laws in human rights from SOAS University of London.[4] She is an Affiliate Scholar at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University, a senior advisor on Migration and Forced Displacement at the non-profit Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development (ARDD).[2] Widely published,[6] she co-founded at ARDD the Global Network on the Question of Palestine.[2] In 2020, she and Lex Takkenberg wrote the Oxford University Press-published Palestinian Refugees in International Law.[7]
She seems like just a dabbler lol/
You left out that she's an anti-Semite.
So statutes are written and people like judges decide whether the tature was infringed.
Why can nobody show me the statute where it says self-defense is not allowed for any individuals that are part of an occupying force?
Everyone knows you are playing dumb but the degree to which you will make yourself appear that way is both comical and sad. Let’s see how you prostate yourself for POS nation and pretend you don’t see this content.
“The UN Charter, a treaty binding on all member states, codifies key rights and responsibilities of states. Among these are the duty to respect the self-determination of peoples (including the Palestinians), the duty to respect human rights, and the duty to refrain from the use of force against other states (where not authorized by the Security Council). Israel, for the 76 years of its existence, has been repeatedly in breach of these principles.
A temporary exception to the prohibition on the use of force is codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter for self-defense from external attacks. But importantly, no such right exists where the threat emanates from inside the territory controlled by the state. This principle was affirmed by the World Court in its 2004 opinion on Israel’s apartheid wall. And the Court found then, and again in its 2024 opinion on the occupation, that Israel is the occupying power across the occupied Palestinian territory. Thus, Israel, as the occupying power, cannot claim self-defense as a justification for launching military attacks in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights.
Of course, Israel, from within its own territory, can lawfully repel any attacks to protect its civilians, but it cannot claim self-defense to wage war against the territories it occupies. In fact, its principal obligation is to protect the occupied population. In doing so, an occupying power can undertake essential law enforcement functions (as distinct from military operations). But, given that the World Court has subsequently found that Israel’s occupation of the territories is itself entirely unlawful, even those functions would likely be illegitimate, except as strictly necessary to protect the occupied population and within a short timeline of withdrawal.
In its most recent opinion, the Court has declared that Israel’s presence in the territories violates the principle of self-determination, the rule of non-acquisition of territory by force, and the human rights of the Palestinian people and that it must quickly end its presence and compensate the Palestinian people for losses suffered. As a matter of law, every Israeli boot on the ground, every Israeli missile, jet, or drone in Palestinian air space, and even a single unauthorized Israeli bicycle on a Palestinian road, is a breach of international law.
In sum, Israel’s lawful remedy for threats that it alleges emanate from the occupied territories is to end its unlawful occupation, dismantle the settlements, leave the territories, remove the siege, and fully relinquish control to the occupied Palestinian people.
Here, international law is a simple reflection of common sense and universal morality. A criminal cannot take over someone’s home, move in, loot its contents, imprison and brutalize the inhabitants, and then claim self-defense to murder the homeowners when they fight back. “
No, Israel does not have a right to defend itself in Gaza. But the Palestinians do.
Basic morality and simple logic dictate that the right of self-defense belongs to the Palestinian people, not to their oppressor. And international law agrees.
mondoweiss.net
Last edited:
She has status as the UN Rapporteur on Israel/Palestine, she voices the law and findings on human rights.
You are an anonymous troll on a pooner board arguing for more genocide.
Your opinion is less trustworthy than larue as you argue for more war crimes, apartheid and genocide.
Why should we care about who you think is racist?
You are here arguing for genocide, the most racist evil humans can do.
That's why I post the findings of the UN Rapporteur and other, very trustworthy experts.
They are nothing more than opinions. I keep asking for statutes that say that this self-defence is not allowed.
When somebody goes to criminal court for breaking a law, there is a statute that states what that law is, i.e. what is permitted and what is not. It is up to the judge (or jury) to rule, in their opinion, if that state had been violated.
I'm asking for the statute and you keep giving me opinion. TBH, if there is no statute that can be provided, how can Israel be in violation of it. How can they violate it if it does not exist?
As such, without a statute that you can show me, you have no argument.
BTW, whatever other people/experts say on this topic does not change the fact that she is discredited in the field and is anti-Semitic.
No, your posts are nothing but opinions and the opinion of someone who backs racial supremacy, apartheid and gencocide.
The UN Rapporteur reports on the law, human rights findings and recommendations to the UN for actions based on human rights abuses.
Your posts are worth nothing.
Hers are respected and acted upon.
Your views on her findings are as useful as asking Paul Bernardo's opinion of his trial judge.
Here are quotes from the ICJ's legal findings on the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
This is the law and the findings of the world's highest court.
Very true. However, I've never claimed that my opinions constitute any thing more than that. You pretend that your opinions and the opinions of others who do NOT create laws, somehow constitute international law. It's a pretty grandiose attitude.
Oops
It even says these are merely opinions. This is NOT the law.
None of these are International Law or Statutes. They are not even UN resolutions.
It is nothing more than an Advisory Opinion of what Israel should. No laws have been broken. It's all a bunch of hot air.And do you want to know the best part? You posted all of this because we were talking about Israel's right to defend itself. Right? This mumbo jumbo does not say a single solitary word about an occupying force's right of self-defense. It does not address it in the least. Why did you even bother posting it? It does absolutely nothing, zip, zero, nada to prove this nebulous theory of yours. You need to find them these statutes
So, I ask you once again ("Try to see it my way"), where is the statute/citation of accepted international law that says that an occupying force does not have the right to defend itself. Who drew it up. When was it drawn up and where is it recorded? Methinks that once we look at this factually, instead of based upon non-binding opinions, you are completely empty-handed. "Isn't it a Pity. Now isn't it a shame?" But that's a song for another day.
So, for now:
Last edited:
I already posted the UN Rapporteur stating Israel doesn't have the right to self defence because they are the occupying force.Very true. However, I've never claimed that my opinions constitute any thing more than that. You pretend that your opinions and the opinions of others who do NOT create laws, somehow constitute international law. It's a pretty grandiose attitude.
Oops
It even says these are merely opinions. This is NOT the law.
None of these are International Law or Statutes. They are not even UN resolutions.
And do you want to know the best part? You posted all of this because we were talking about Israel's right to defend itself. Right? This mumbo jumbo does not say a single solitary word about an occupying force's right of self-defense. It does not address it in the least. Why did you even bother posting it? It does absolutely nothing, zip, zero, nada to prove this nebulous theory of yours. You need to find them these statutes
So, I ask you once again ("Try to see it my way"), where is the statute/citation of accepted international law that says that an occupying force does not have the right to defend itself. Who drew it up. When was it drawn up and where is it recorded? Methinks that once we look at this factually, instead of based upon non-binding opinions, you are completely empty-handed. "Isn't it a Pity. Now isn't it a shame?" But that's a song for another day.
So, for now:
Nor do I care that you cross out legal findings and declare them 'opinions'.
Nobody should ever care what zionists say, they are genocidal creeps.
This thread is how zionists should be dealt with in every situation around the world.
“Actually,” she said, “I have a Master’s in Middle East studies. My family is from Egypt. I’m very educated.”
The two people, now irate, pushed further.
“It is not a genocide, that is propaganda and you have been misinformed.”
My friend smiled (or grimaced, I wouldn’t want to face her in a debate.)
“I’m aware of your views, but I don’t need to be educated. Thousands of children are dead. Amnesty International calls this a genocide. Human Rights Watch. The ICC. Have *you* read the reports?”
The two people’s eyes widened.
At this point, I noticed that they had chosen only to address my friend (who was Egyptian, but also had blonde hair and blue eyes, like them.)
They had also opted to not speak to me at all.
My friend continued with a dizzying array of statistics (179-page Human Rights Watch report on deliberate water deprivation. 42,000 Palestinian civilians killed. 13,000 Palestinian children killed. 97,000 Palestinian children injured.)
Her voice started rising.
I sat there shocked. I’ll admit I am afraid to confront anyone that looks white in public, much less raise my voice.
But then the restaurant started to take notice.
I felt everyone’s eyes on us. My friend’s voice got even louder. She continued…
“Entire generations wiped out. The intent to destroy a group, whole or in part. Genocide..”
“We would still like to talk about this later,” the woman said, grabbing the man’s arm.
“We will give you our information, in case you would like to discuss this in a civil way…”
My friend’s eyes flashed.
“The NAKBA,” she bellowed, her arms landing on the table. “750,000 Palestinians displaced. NOT CIVIL.”
The room erupted.
The couple glanced at each other.
“That’s right!!” my friend said. “I’m an academic. I’m educated. I’m aware. Free Palestine.”
The restaurant burst into applause.
I had barely moved a muscle for the entire exchange. My friend was shaking, with pride, with fear, with both.
People in the booths next to us came up to us.
“Thank you.”
One last *clarifying* note on this (since I do have many journalist and International law friends who *will* fact check me) on the above, referring to the *ICJ* ruling that references the Genocide convention
So there is no statute to confirm your claims. That's what I thought.
These are only special rules recently made up so they can be only be applied to the situation with Israel.
No need to drag this out and hijack this thread. It's all yours.
If only the Palestinian leadership were willing to accept a peace deal, any time between 1937 and 2008. Instead they embraced terrorism, thinking that if they killed enough Jews, the rest would leave.
It's great when you admit how disgusting your views are.
Are you onboard with indigenous people gunning you down?
As you keep denying, here you are trying to justify terrorism.
