Steeles Royal

Hamas releases 3 hostages amid uncertainty over ceasefire deal

Klatuu

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2022
6,335
3,759
113
Then hamas targetted the babies.

Can you show us the international statute that backs that up and shows that Israel is not allowed to defend itself and its' citizens, especially against a terrorist attack. Or are you just aping Frans claims?
Easy

‘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. ‘

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,258
11,423
113
Toronto
1) Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, as the occupier you cannot claim self defence against the people you occupy.
I asked for a citation of an international statute. Not a personal opinion.
2) The occupying power is duty bound to provide care for those they occupy,
OK.
not commit genocide.
Which the UNGA has passed no resolutions to that effect.
3) You cannot declare war on an occupied territory.
War was declared on an organization, hamas. Not a territory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Oracle

Klatuu

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2022
6,335
3,759
113
I asked for a citation of an international statute. Not a personal opinion.
OK. Which the UNGA has passed no resolutions to that effect.

War was declared on an organization, hamas. Not a territory.
‘You are taking playing dumb to humiliating lengths


‘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. ‘

mondoweiss.net

No, Israel does not have a right to defend itself in Gaza. But the Palestinians do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,256
23,711
113

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,258
11,423
113
Toronto
I included the UN Rapporteur stating those same legal statements.
Its the law.

Your Her opinion is worthless here.
So you have no official international statute that you can provide. As I suspected. Her opinion does not make it law.
 
Last edited:

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
23,570
2,064
113
So you have no official international statute that you can provide. As I suspected. Her opinion does not make it law.
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/
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,258
11,423
113
Toronto
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?
 
Toronto Escorts