![BrianCox_RLTW's tweet photo. Literally nothing in this tweet @DropSiteNews is an accurate articulation of international law - as usual. Though 4 misrepresentations of int'l law in a fairly short tweet is ... impressive.
Let's set the record straight on all 4, shall we?
1. @CIJ_ICJ "ruled" in 2024 @Israel's continued presence in Hebron (located in Judea) is "unlawful."
❌️ False. The ICJ "ruling" in 2024 was an advisory opinion. Unlike ACTUAL "rulings" (decisions) in a contentious case when the parties have agreed to compulsory jurisdiction (ICJ Statute, art. 59), advisory OPINIONS are not legally binding on anyone or anything (same, art. 61). Characterizing advisory OPINIONS as "rulings" & treating them as authoritative is misleading and/or ignorant. For references, see pic 1.
2. Two @IDF troops were killed at an "illegal" checkpoint in Hebron.
❌️❌️ False. The claim that a checkpoint in Judea and Samaria is "illegal" relies in part on the ICJ "ruling" (see above) AND also in part on the assertion that 🇮🇱 "occupation" in "West Bank" is "illegal" in general. This is ALSO incorrect. I've covered this repeatedly here @X so I won't go into detail now (for but one previous analysis, see here: https://t.co/JHDmI3pllD). The short explanation is that the claim that 🇮🇱 remains an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 is based on a false claim from Yoram Dinstein dating to 2009 that "effective control" can, "to some degree, amount to REMOTE control" (pic 2). This assertion is inconsistent with historical OR current state practice examined IN Dinstein's study - yet the "remote control as effective control" construct remains still today the (false) basis for claiming 🇮🇱 is an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 - including in the ICJ "ruling" (advisory OPINION) from 2024.
3. Pursuant to #LOAC, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets, and attacking them is not in itself a war crime, unlike deliberately targeting civilians."
❌️❌️❌️ False - at least under these circumstances. I mean, this IS an accurate statement of int'l law ... BUT military personnel are ONLY legitimate targets for adversarial belligerents with combatant status. AND the terrorists that carried out this checkpoint attack do NOT have combatant status since they are civilians taking direct part in hostilities (DPH). There are conditions pursuant to which civilian DPH can achieve combatant privilege (Geneva Convention III, art. 4A2), but these conditions were not met here. Absent combatant privilege, the civilians DPH also do not have combatant immunity (GC III, art. 99). Without combatant status, ANY act of belligerency can be prosecuted as a violation of MUNICIPAL law (as opposed to international law) - even if it doesn't constitute a war crime pursuant to int'l law. So, these terrorists committed at least 2 counts of murder, among other crimes pursuant to "municipal" law. So yes, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets" - but not for civilians taking direct part in hostilities. There is no such thing as a "legitimate target" for civilians DPH, so this claim is ALSO false. See pic 3 for references.
4. "The act of armed resistance is 'criminal,' however, under Israeli military law, which Israel unlawfully imposes on Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank..." since "the UN General Assembly has repeatedly affirmed 'the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples' against 'foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle,' most notably in Resolution 37/43 in 1982."
❌️❌️❌️❌️ False. I mean, the second part IS true - @UN General Assembly HAS "repeatedly affirmed" the legitimacy of armed struggle against foreign occupation - including in UNGA Res 37/43 (1982), among others. BUT this doesn't make the first part true BECAUSE ... that's right. UN General Assembly doesn't have authority to establish binding provisions of international law simply by adopting resolutions. Pursuant to the UN Charter, UNGA has authority to "discuss" matters & "may make recommendations" to the Security Council. But that's it (for present purposes). So, the claim that "armed resistance" is ONLY "illegal" pursuant to Israeli military law, rather than international law, because the General Assembly has passed resolutions repeatedly affirming the legitimacy of armed struggle is ... false. UNGA Resolutions are the only relevant aspect of international law that have repeatedly so affirmed, yet the General Assembly doesn't have authority to established binding international law simply by adopting resolutions in the first place. That means armed struggle is NOT legitimate - pursuant to Israeli military law AND international law.
Pretty impressive, actually - to cram 4 misrepresentations of international law into 1 fairly short tweet, as Drop Site "News" does here. In the end, it doesn't actually matter that "no civilians were reported killed in Friday's [terrorist] operation." The civilians taking direct part in hostilities - the terrorists - involved in this "operation" committed murder. And no amount of distorting international law can change that fact.
So, let this serve as a periodic reminder that Drop Site "News" is not a "news" outlet at all. At its core, it is little more than a fountain constantly spewing anti-Israel propaganda. And whether it's a media outlet or "human rights" activist or social media troll claiming Palestinians (or any other group, for that matter) have a legitimate "right" to "armed resistance" against an "illegal" "occupier" like 🇮🇱, all they're doing is attempting to justify political violence.
And as we've seen EXPLICITLY in public discourse at least since 10/7, the attempt to justify political violence isn't limited to "occupied" Palestinian territories. In the name of "solidarity" & driven by rampant #legaldisinformation such as this tweet from Drop Site "News", these pro-Palestinian "activists" & propagandists increasingly seek to justify political violence at home as well.
In doing so, they're simply putting a Western face on Middle Eastern terrorist propaganda. And few do so more brazenly than Drop Site "News".
#TheMoreYouKnow #TruthMatters](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HVX04NPbkAAYerK.jpg)
![BrianCox_RLTW's tweet photo. Literally nothing in this tweet @DropSiteNews is an accurate articulation of international law - as usual. Though 4 misrepresentations of int'l law in a fairly short tweet is ... impressive.
Let's set the record straight on all 4, shall we?
1. @CIJ_ICJ "ruled" in 2024 @Israel's continued presence in Hebron (located in Judea) is "unlawful."
❌️ False. The ICJ "ruling" in 2024 was an advisory opinion. Unlike ACTUAL "rulings" (decisions) in a contentious case when the parties have agreed to compulsory jurisdiction (ICJ Statute, art. 59), advisory OPINIONS are not legally binding on anyone or anything (same, art. 61). Characterizing advisory OPINIONS as "rulings" & treating them as authoritative is misleading and/or ignorant. For references, see pic 1.
2. Two @IDF troops were killed at an "illegal" checkpoint in Hebron.
❌️❌️ False. The claim that a checkpoint in Judea and Samaria is "illegal" relies in part on the ICJ "ruling" (see above) AND also in part on the assertion that 🇮🇱 "occupation" in "West Bank" is "illegal" in general. This is ALSO incorrect. I've covered this repeatedly here @X so I won't go into detail now (for but one previous analysis, see here: https://t.co/JHDmI3pllD). The short explanation is that the claim that 🇮🇱 remains an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 is based on a false claim from Yoram Dinstein dating to 2009 that "effective control" can, "to some degree, amount to REMOTE control" (pic 2). This assertion is inconsistent with historical OR current state practice examined IN Dinstein's study - yet the "remote control as effective control" construct remains still today the (false) basis for claiming 🇮🇱 is an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 - including in the ICJ "ruling" (advisory OPINION) from 2024.
3. Pursuant to #LOAC, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets, and attacking them is not in itself a war crime, unlike deliberately targeting civilians."
❌️❌️❌️ False - at least under these circumstances. I mean, this IS an accurate statement of int'l law ... BUT military personnel are ONLY legitimate targets for adversarial belligerents with combatant status. AND the terrorists that carried out this checkpoint attack do NOT have combatant status since they are civilians taking direct part in hostilities (DPH). There are conditions pursuant to which civilian DPH can achieve combatant privilege (Geneva Convention III, art. 4A2), but these conditions were not met here. Absent combatant privilege, the civilians DPH also do not have combatant immunity (GC III, art. 99). Without combatant status, ANY act of belligerency can be prosecuted as a violation of MUNICIPAL law (as opposed to international law) - even if it doesn't constitute a war crime pursuant to int'l law. So, these terrorists committed at least 2 counts of murder, among other crimes pursuant to "municipal" law. So yes, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets" - but not for civilians taking direct part in hostilities. There is no such thing as a "legitimate target" for civilians DPH, so this claim is ALSO false. See pic 3 for references.
4. "The act of armed resistance is 'criminal,' however, under Israeli military law, which Israel unlawfully imposes on Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank..." since "the UN General Assembly has repeatedly affirmed 'the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples' against 'foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle,' most notably in Resolution 37/43 in 1982."
❌️❌️❌️❌️ False. I mean, the second part IS true - @UN General Assembly HAS "repeatedly affirmed" the legitimacy of armed struggle against foreign occupation - including in UNGA Res 37/43 (1982), among others. BUT this doesn't make the first part true BECAUSE ... that's right. UN General Assembly doesn't have authority to establish binding provisions of international law simply by adopting resolutions. Pursuant to the UN Charter, UNGA has authority to "discuss" matters & "may make recommendations" to the Security Council. But that's it (for present purposes). So, the claim that "armed resistance" is ONLY "illegal" pursuant to Israeli military law, rather than international law, because the General Assembly has passed resolutions repeatedly affirming the legitimacy of armed struggle is ... false. UNGA Resolutions are the only relevant aspect of international law that have repeatedly so affirmed, yet the General Assembly doesn't have authority to established binding international law simply by adopting resolutions in the first place. That means armed struggle is NOT legitimate - pursuant to Israeli military law AND international law.
Pretty impressive, actually - to cram 4 misrepresentations of international law into 1 fairly short tweet, as Drop Site "News" does here. In the end, it doesn't actually matter that "no civilians were reported killed in Friday's [terrorist] operation." The civilians taking direct part in hostilities - the terrorists - involved in this "operation" committed murder. And no amount of distorting international law can change that fact.
So, let this serve as a periodic reminder that Drop Site "News" is not a "news" outlet at all. At its core, it is little more than a fountain constantly spewing anti-Israel propaganda. And whether it's a media outlet or "human rights" activist or social media troll claiming Palestinians (or any other group, for that matter) have a legitimate "right" to "armed resistance" against an "illegal" "occupier" like 🇮🇱, all they're doing is attempting to justify political violence.
And as we've seen EXPLICITLY in public discourse at least since 10/7, the attempt to justify political violence isn't limited to "occupied" Palestinian territories. In the name of "solidarity" & driven by rampant #legaldisinformation such as this tweet from Drop Site "News", these pro-Palestinian "activists" & propagandists increasingly seek to justify political violence at home as well.
In doing so, they're simply putting a Western face on Middle Eastern terrorist propaganda. And few do so more brazenly than Drop Site "News".
#TheMoreYouKnow #TruthMatters](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HVX02rvb0AAADOj.jpg)
![BrianCox_RLTW's tweet photo. Literally nothing in this tweet @DropSiteNews is an accurate articulation of international law - as usual. Though 4 misrepresentations of int'l law in a fairly short tweet is ... impressive.
Let's set the record straight on all 4, shall we?
1. @CIJ_ICJ "ruled" in 2024 @Israel's continued presence in Hebron (located in Judea) is "unlawful."
❌️ False. The ICJ "ruling" in 2024 was an advisory opinion. Unlike ACTUAL "rulings" (decisions) in a contentious case when the parties have agreed to compulsory jurisdiction (ICJ Statute, art. 59), advisory OPINIONS are not legally binding on anyone or anything (same, art. 61). Characterizing advisory OPINIONS as "rulings" & treating them as authoritative is misleading and/or ignorant. For references, see pic 1.
2. Two @IDF troops were killed at an "illegal" checkpoint in Hebron.
❌️❌️ False. The claim that a checkpoint in Judea and Samaria is "illegal" relies in part on the ICJ "ruling" (see above) AND also in part on the assertion that 🇮🇱 "occupation" in "West Bank" is "illegal" in general. This is ALSO incorrect. I've covered this repeatedly here @X so I won't go into detail now (for but one previous analysis, see here: https://t.co/JHDmI3pllD). The short explanation is that the claim that 🇮🇱 remains an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 is based on a false claim from Yoram Dinstein dating to 2009 that "effective control" can, "to some degree, amount to REMOTE control" (pic 2). This assertion is inconsistent with historical OR current state practice examined IN Dinstein's study - yet the "remote control as effective control" construct remains still today the (false) basis for claiming 🇮🇱 is an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 - including in the ICJ "ruling" (advisory OPINION) from 2024.
3. Pursuant to #LOAC, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets, and attacking them is not in itself a war crime, unlike deliberately targeting civilians."
❌️❌️❌️ False - at least under these circumstances. I mean, this IS an accurate statement of int'l law ... BUT military personnel are ONLY legitimate targets for adversarial belligerents with combatant status. AND the terrorists that carried out this checkpoint attack do NOT have combatant status since they are civilians taking direct part in hostilities (DPH). There are conditions pursuant to which civilian DPH can achieve combatant privilege (Geneva Convention III, art. 4A2), but these conditions were not met here. Absent combatant privilege, the civilians DPH also do not have combatant immunity (GC III, art. 99). Without combatant status, ANY act of belligerency can be prosecuted as a violation of MUNICIPAL law (as opposed to international law) - even if it doesn't constitute a war crime pursuant to int'l law. So, these terrorists committed at least 2 counts of murder, among other crimes pursuant to "municipal" law. So yes, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets" - but not for civilians taking direct part in hostilities. There is no such thing as a "legitimate target" for civilians DPH, so this claim is ALSO false. See pic 3 for references.
4. "The act of armed resistance is 'criminal,' however, under Israeli military law, which Israel unlawfully imposes on Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank..." since "the UN General Assembly has repeatedly affirmed 'the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples' against 'foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle,' most notably in Resolution 37/43 in 1982."
❌️❌️❌️❌️ False. I mean, the second part IS true - @UN General Assembly HAS "repeatedly affirmed" the legitimacy of armed struggle against foreign occupation - including in UNGA Res 37/43 (1982), among others. BUT this doesn't make the first part true BECAUSE ... that's right. UN General Assembly doesn't have authority to establish binding provisions of international law simply by adopting resolutions. Pursuant to the UN Charter, UNGA has authority to "discuss" matters & "may make recommendations" to the Security Council. But that's it (for present purposes). So, the claim that "armed resistance" is ONLY "illegal" pursuant to Israeli military law, rather than international law, because the General Assembly has passed resolutions repeatedly affirming the legitimacy of armed struggle is ... false. UNGA Resolutions are the only relevant aspect of international law that have repeatedly so affirmed, yet the General Assembly doesn't have authority to established binding international law simply by adopting resolutions in the first place. That means armed struggle is NOT legitimate - pursuant to Israeli military law AND international law.
Pretty impressive, actually - to cram 4 misrepresentations of international law into 1 fairly short tweet, as Drop Site "News" does here. In the end, it doesn't actually matter that "no civilians were reported killed in Friday's [terrorist] operation." The civilians taking direct part in hostilities - the terrorists - involved in this "operation" committed murder. And no amount of distorting international law can change that fact.
So, let this serve as a periodic reminder that Drop Site "News" is not a "news" outlet at all. At its core, it is little more than a fountain constantly spewing anti-Israel propaganda. And whether it's a media outlet or "human rights" activist or social media troll claiming Palestinians (or any other group, for that matter) have a legitimate "right" to "armed resistance" against an "illegal" "occupier" like 🇮🇱, all they're doing is attempting to justify political violence.
And as we've seen EXPLICITLY in public discourse at least since 10/7, the attempt to justify political violence isn't limited to "occupied" Palestinian territories. In the name of "solidarity" & driven by rampant #legaldisinformation such as this tweet from Drop Site "News", these pro-Palestinian "activists" & propagandists increasingly seek to justify political violence at home as well.
In doing so, they're simply putting a Western face on Middle Eastern terrorist propaganda. And few do so more brazenly than Drop Site "News".
#TheMoreYouKnow #TruthMatters](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HVX01FOboAALtoj.jpg)
Olivia
Online
The Election Center
@ElectionCenter_
Your #1 source for reliable coverage of the 2025 Election Season. Also covers some non election news. Consider supporting:
Los Angeles, CA
Joined March 2020
71 Following
9.8K Followers
40K Posts
Pinned Tweet
If you wanna support what I do, consider donating to me on Ko-Fi. Any little bit helps and is appreciated. #Election2026 #CO01
https://t.co/nyyKdBeNM8
Claiming Israel is part of most Jewish Americans identity, it’s not, is actual antisemitism.
According to the PAC supporting Abdul El-Sayed for U.S. Senate, the reason Americans can’t afford groceries is because the U.S. is paying for “Israel to kill Palestinians.”
Blaming America’s problems on Israel isn’t simply criticism of foreign aid.
That’s why they don’t care about the billions of aid going to Egypt, Jordan and Ukraine. Or about US military forces defending Europe, South Korea and Japan.
Israel is central to the identity of most American Jews.
Singling out Israel as the cause of American suffering is a thinly veiled attempt to turn Americans against their Jewish compatriots, portraying their support for Israel as evidence of divided loyalties and their political influence as a threat to the interests of their fellow Americans.
It is an old antisemitic tool dressed up as a foreign-policy argument.
@PatinkinMandy
Zionists getting triggered over someone wedding
This is Texas.
We are being occupied.
Yes you are a pro Israel activist stop lying
I am not a pro-Israel activist. Israel is incidental to what I care about.
I am a pro-West, pro-Democracy, pro-National Security activist.
We are under attack by the same enemies, they’re just closer. But my goal is American survival.
Who to follow
VintageElectionGraphics
@ElectionVintage
Clips of vintage graphics from election newscasts. Election maps @justelexmaps.
Elections Daily
@Elections_Daily
Your source for nonpartisan analysis of American and international politics. Part of the @DecisionDeskHQ News Network. Contact us: [email protected].
Political Polls
@Politics_Polls
Posting all Political Polls
Literally the only people crying about the ad are the most vile Zionists.
The ad reads like Arab Street slop if anyone has ever perused Al Jazeera. This is basically the gist of it. Kind of funny if it weren’t such an indictment of the modern Democratic Party.
Facts don’t care about your feelings
Ok to be fair, there literally weren’t any high profile dem challengers in those primary races.
Ridiculous.
For all the folks still pretending El-Sayed’s race is the same as Cooper’s or Peltola’s, do they have former Dem rivals refusing to fully endorse them on national TV?
‘Blue no matter who’ was a hypocritical centrist lie and this hypocrisy may hurt Dems in 2028.
@MikeRogersForMI @AbdulElSayed Fact check: in this same interview Mike rogers admits that in 2012 he was willing to work with the Muslim brotherhood
Mike rogers literally admitted he worked with the Muslim brotherhood
Does the left understand how ridiculous it looks to claim anti-Sayed Democrats are more loyal to Israel than America, while simultaneously claiming that any inquiry into El-Sayed’s very real links to the Muslim Brotherhood is an unwarranted attack on his patriotism?
Literally no one is accusing “the Jewish people” of genocide. Israel is being accused of genocide.
“To accuse the Jewish people of genocide is wild.”
Broadway icon and Nobody Wants This star Tovah Feldshuh gets real with Jonathan Harounoff on UNSCRIPTED, on acting, marriage, the global rise of antisemitism, and what she says about the genocide accusations against Israel.
Full episode drops Monday, October 26 on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts.
Production support provided by the @cjewishhistory, @AmericanSephard, Noff Media, Odd One Out Studios, @JewishNewsUK, and Leah Barzideh.
“Anti Zionism is fueling antisemitism!!!”
Meanwhile this is what Zionists believe.
A young blonde woman with an American accent in Israel says that all the Arabs must be kicked out of Gaza because it is "our land" since "God commanded us to take it."
The Palestinians should be kicked out to any other Arab state, she continues, except Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, "because they are ours."
"Or we will kill them," she adds
Can we stop pretending that this is a marginal view in Israel? That these are the comments of a fringe minority?
They are not. Israel has been on this path for quite some time.
Western governments know it fully - yet they continue to fund and enable Israel's genocidal policies.
For a so called journalist you’re consistently just wrong about everything
There have been nearly 200 Palestinian terrorist attacks in Judea and Samaria in the past month.
I don’t want to hear another thing about the fake “settler violence” movement. It’s all part of the Free Palestine 🇵🇸 SCAM.
@StellaEscoTV Fact check: Palestinians in the West Bank have the internationally protected right of armed resistance against the illegal occupying force. The IDF has no right to self defense in the West Bank. To label the shooting as a “terrorist attack” is factually incorrect.
@StandWithUs Fact check: American Jews have nothing to do with Israel and to claim so is antisemitic.
Imagine saying this about a Jewish person endorsing Abdul
I wish there were evidence that our party were interested in protecting Jews. It’s impossible to look at this issue honestly and conclude that’s true.
Here is the truth. Left versus right is not going to make you arrive at correct moral conclusions anymore. Both parties have monsters, and ours is the faction AES represents.
We can either see that difficult truth or live in a beautiful lie
What the fuck does Israel have to do with a Jewish camp. And he’s the flag of a genocidal apartheid state is highly offensive.
Because Israel is currently a US ally that’s currently committing a genocide and apartheid.
PSA: if you are worried about PACs but only call out AIPAC, then maybe you should watch this and ask yourself: “am I really seeing the entire picture?” And if #Israel is the only foreign country you obsess about - maybe ask “why?” #JustSaying
Wow, literally everything you just said is wrong.
Literally nothing in this tweet @DropSiteNews is an accurate articulation of international law - as usual. Though 4 misrepresentations of int'l law in a fairly short tweet is ... impressive.
Let's set the record straight on all 4, shall we?
1. @CIJ_ICJ "ruled" in 2024 @Israel's continued presence in Hebron (located in Judea) is "unlawful."
❌️ False. The ICJ "ruling" in 2024 was an advisory opinion. Unlike ACTUAL "rulings" (decisions) in a contentious case when the parties have agreed to compulsory jurisdiction (ICJ Statute, art. 59), advisory OPINIONS are not legally binding on anyone or anything (same, art. 61). Characterizing advisory OPINIONS as "rulings" & treating them as authoritative is misleading and/or ignorant. For references, see pic 1.
2. Two @IDF troops were killed at an "illegal" checkpoint in Hebron.
❌️❌️ False. The claim that a checkpoint in Judea and Samaria is "illegal" relies in part on the ICJ "ruling" (see above) AND also in part on the assertion that 🇮🇱 "occupation" in "West Bank" is "illegal" in general. This is ALSO incorrect. I've covered this repeatedly here @X so I won't go into detail now (for but one previous analysis, see here: https://t.co/JHDmI3pllD). The short explanation is that the claim that 🇮🇱 remains an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 is based on a false claim from Yoram Dinstein dating to 2009 that "effective control" can, "to some degree, amount to REMOTE control" (pic 2). This assertion is inconsistent with historical OR current state practice examined IN Dinstein's study - yet the "remote control as effective control" construct remains still today the (false) basis for claiming 🇮🇱 is an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 - including in the ICJ "ruling" (advisory OPINION) from 2024.
3. Pursuant to #LOAC, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets, and attacking them is not in itself a war crime, unlike deliberately targeting civilians."
❌️❌️❌️ False - at least under these circumstances. I mean, this IS an accurate statement of int'l law ... BUT military personnel are ONLY legitimate targets for adversarial belligerents with combatant status. AND the terrorists that carried out this checkpoint attack do NOT have combatant status since they are civilians taking direct part in hostilities (DPH). There are conditions pursuant to which civilian DPH can achieve combatant privilege (Geneva Convention III, art. 4A2), but these conditions were not met here. Absent combatant privilege, the civilians DPH also do not have combatant immunity (GC III, art. 99). Without combatant status, ANY act of belligerency can be prosecuted as a violation of MUNICIPAL law (as opposed to international law) - even if it doesn't constitute a war crime pursuant to int'l law. So, these terrorists committed at least 2 counts of murder, among other crimes pursuant to "municipal" law. So yes, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets" - but not for civilians taking direct part in hostilities. There is no such thing as a "legitimate target" for civilians DPH, so this claim is ALSO false. See pic 3 for references.
4. "The act of armed resistance is 'criminal,' however, under Israeli military law, which Israel unlawfully imposes on Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank..." since "the UN General Assembly has repeatedly affirmed 'the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples' against 'foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle,' most notably in Resolution 37/43 in 1982."
❌️❌️❌️❌️ False. I mean, the second part IS true - @UN General Assembly HAS "repeatedly affirmed" the legitimacy of armed struggle against foreign occupation - including in UNGA Res 37/43 (1982), among others. BUT this doesn't make the first part true BECAUSE ... that's right. UN General Assembly doesn't have authority to establish binding provisions of international law simply by adopting resolutions. Pursuant to the UN Charter, UNGA has authority to "discuss" matters & "may make recommendations" to the Security Council. But that's it (for present purposes). So, the claim that "armed resistance" is ONLY "illegal" pursuant to Israeli military law, rather than international law, because the General Assembly has passed resolutions repeatedly affirming the legitimacy of armed struggle is ... false. UNGA Resolutions are the only relevant aspect of international law that have repeatedly so affirmed, yet the General Assembly doesn't have authority to established binding international law simply by adopting resolutions in the first place. That means armed struggle is NOT legitimate - pursuant to Israeli military law AND international law.
Pretty impressive, actually - to cram 4 misrepresentations of international law into 1 fairly short tweet, as Drop Site "News" does here. In the end, it doesn't actually matter that "no civilians were reported killed in Friday's [terrorist] operation." The civilians taking direct part in hostilities - the terrorists - involved in this "operation" committed murder. And no amount of distorting international law can change that fact.
So, let this serve as a periodic reminder that Drop Site "News" is not a "news" outlet at all. At its core, it is little more than a fountain constantly spewing anti-Israel propaganda. And whether it's a media outlet or "human rights" activist or social media troll claiming Palestinians (or any other group, for that matter) have a legitimate "right" to "armed resistance" against an "illegal" "occupier" like 🇮🇱, all they're doing is attempting to justify political violence.
And as we've seen EXPLICITLY in public discourse at least since 10/7, the attempt to justify political violence isn't limited to "occupied" Palestinian territories. In the name of "solidarity" & driven by rampant #legaldisinformation such as this tweet from Drop Site "News", these pro-Palestinian "activists" & propagandists increasingly seek to justify political violence at home as well.
In doing so, they're simply putting a Western face on Middle Eastern terrorist propaganda. And few do so more brazenly than Drop Site "News".
#TheMoreYouKnow #TruthMatters
![BrianCox_RLTW's tweet photo. Literally nothing in this tweet @DropSiteNews is an accurate articulation of international law - as usual. Though 4 misrepresentations of int'l law in a fairly short tweet is ... impressive.
Let's set the record straight on all 4, shall we?
1. @CIJ_ICJ "ruled" in 2024 @Israel's continued presence in Hebron (located in Judea) is "unlawful."
❌️ False. The ICJ "ruling" in 2024 was an advisory opinion. Unlike ACTUAL "rulings" (decisions) in a contentious case when the parties have agreed to compulsory jurisdiction (ICJ Statute, art. 59), advisory OPINIONS are not legally binding on anyone or anything (same, art. 61). Characterizing advisory OPINIONS as "rulings" & treating them as authoritative is misleading and/or ignorant. For references, see pic 1.
2. Two @IDF troops were killed at an "illegal" checkpoint in Hebron.
❌️❌️ False. The claim that a checkpoint in Judea and Samaria is "illegal" relies in part on the ICJ "ruling" (see above) AND also in part on the assertion that 🇮🇱 "occupation" in "West Bank" is "illegal" in general. This is ALSO incorrect. I've covered this repeatedly here @X so I won't go into detail now (for but one previous analysis, see here: https://t.co/JHDmI3pllD). The short explanation is that the claim that 🇮🇱 remains an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 is based on a false claim from Yoram Dinstein dating to 2009 that "effective control" can, "to some degree, amount to REMOTE control" (pic 2). This assertion is inconsistent with historical OR current state practice examined IN Dinstein's study - yet the "remote control as effective control" construct remains still today the (false) basis for claiming 🇮🇱 is an "Occupying Power" even after Disengagement in 2005 - including in the ICJ "ruling" (advisory OPINION) from 2024.
3. Pursuant to #LOAC, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets, and attacking them is not in itself a war crime, unlike deliberately targeting civilians."
❌️❌️❌️ False - at least under these circumstances. I mean, this IS an accurate statement of int'l law ... BUT military personnel are ONLY legitimate targets for adversarial belligerents with combatant status. AND the terrorists that carried out this checkpoint attack do NOT have combatant status since they are civilians taking direct part in hostilities (DPH). There are conditions pursuant to which civilian DPH can achieve combatant privilege (Geneva Convention III, art. 4A2), but these conditions were not met here. Absent combatant privilege, the civilians DPH also do not have combatant immunity (GC III, art. 99). Without combatant status, ANY act of belligerency can be prosecuted as a violation of MUNICIPAL law (as opposed to international law) - even if it doesn't constitute a war crime pursuant to int'l law. So, these terrorists committed at least 2 counts of murder, among other crimes pursuant to "municipal" law. So yes, "military personnel are generally legitimate targets" - but not for civilians taking direct part in hostilities. There is no such thing as a "legitimate target" for civilians DPH, so this claim is ALSO false. See pic 3 for references.
4. "The act of armed resistance is 'criminal,' however, under Israeli military law, which Israel unlawfully imposes on Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank..." since "the UN General Assembly has repeatedly affirmed 'the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples' against 'foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle,' most notably in Resolution 37/43 in 1982."
❌️❌️❌️❌️ False. I mean, the second part IS true - @UN General Assembly HAS "repeatedly affirmed" the legitimacy of armed struggle against foreign occupation - including in UNGA Res 37/43 (1982), among others. BUT this doesn't make the first part true BECAUSE ... that's right. UN General Assembly doesn't have authority to establish binding provisions of international law simply by adopting resolutions. Pursuant to the UN Charter, UNGA has authority to "discuss" matters & "may make recommendations" to the Security Council. But that's it (for present purposes). So, the claim that "armed resistance" is ONLY "illegal" pursuant to Israeli military law, rather than international law, because the General Assembly has passed resolutions repeatedly affirming the legitimacy of armed struggle is ... false. UNGA Resolutions are the only relevant aspect of international law that have repeatedly so affirmed, yet the General Assembly doesn't have authority to established binding international law simply by adopting resolutions in the first place. That means armed struggle is NOT legitimate - pursuant to Israeli military law AND international law.
Pretty impressive, actually - to cram 4 misrepresentations of international law into 1 fairly short tweet, as Drop Site "News" does here. In the end, it doesn't actually matter that "no civilians were reported killed in Friday's [terrorist] operation." The civilians taking direct part in hostilities - the terrorists - involved in this "operation" committed murder. And no amount of distorting international law can change that fact.
So, let this serve as a periodic reminder that Drop Site "News" is not a "news" outlet at all. At its core, it is little more than a fountain constantly spewing anti-Israel propaganda. And whether it's a media outlet or "human rights" activist or social media troll claiming Palestinians (or any other group, for that matter) have a legitimate "right" to "armed resistance" against an "illegal" "occupier" like 🇮🇱, all they're doing is attempting to justify political violence.
And as we've seen EXPLICITLY in public discourse at least since 10/7, the attempt to justify political violence isn't limited to "occupied" Palestinian territories. In the name of "solidarity" & driven by rampant #legaldisinformation such as this tweet from Drop Site "News", these pro-Palestinian "activists" & propagandists increasingly seek to justify political violence at home as well.
In doing so, they're simply putting a Western face on Middle Eastern terrorist propaganda. And few do so more brazenly than Drop Site "News".
#TheMoreYouKnow #TruthMatters](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HVX051sa4AASO-r.jpg)
This troglodyte is truly the most stupid motherfucker to have breathed.
Settlement isn’t the problem. It’s the solution. Increased Jewish presence motivates increased IDF and police presence, and thus, law and order. It will reduce terrorism against Israelis and also render civilian self-defense unnecessary, as well as reduce Israeli crimes, to the degree that’s a problem. Once the local Arab population sees that antizionism is ineffective and that they will not be allowed to ethnically cleanse or commit genocide against Israelis, they will come closer to choosing peace.
@EYakoby Fact check: Palestinians in the West Bank have the internationally protected right of armed resistance against the illegal occupying force. The IDF has no right to self defense as the illegal occupying force.
Hasan Piker says he will have Former Governor Jesse Ventura (I-MN) on his stream tomorrow.
tomorrow. the body. the mind. in minneapolis. be there. this will be one for the books.
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.3M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers