![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
Rose
@WhimsyWithStyle
Irreverent independent. Loves well-sourced posts.
Joined November 2014
1.5K Following
1.3K Followers
33.8K Posts
@TheRickWilson autopen ?
@DropSiteNews ugg. no.
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)
@CapitalOne wants to annihilate the USA. He’s yours.
StopAntisemitism is extremely concerned to see @CapitalOne employee Cedric Knight post the following antisemitic rhetoric on his public social media profile:
- "Synagogue of Satan, your days are numbered" referring to the world's only Jewish country
- Stating Christians, not Jews, are the "true people of Israel"
- Calls to cancel July 4th over claims of Israeli control
- Praises Iran and wishes for the "annihilation" of the United States.
These views are deeply concerning, especially for any Jewish coworkers who may work alongside Cedric Knight.
@Shebbie4nyc council…can we fix that? otherwise, very handy!
@MikeNew19512115 Nah, he’s been completely insane for some time.
@RealNewYorker2 if these pass, we’re done quicker than I thought we’d be
@Shebbie4nyc hugely important to vote no.
@BasicallySusan @nyc_evsa @rmusimg @SpeakerMenin @ShaunAbreu @TransAlt not sure Gail Brewer will help. She voted for COPA to end private property rights.
Scary times...more than half the council voted to gut private property rights. These are the city council members who voted go give government preference, or if you will, government supremacy. Thanks, @RezaC1 .
We need a law suit to top COPA.
Here is the full list of communists in the NYC Council who voted to undermine private property rights, one of the foundational principles of American law.
Althea V. Stevens | @Althea_Stevens
Amanda C. Farías | @AmandaFariasNYC
Carl Wilson | @CMCarlWilson
Carmen N. De La Rosa | @CarmenDeLaRosa
Chi A. Ossé | @CMChiOsse
Chris Banks | @CMCHRISBANKS42
Christopher Marte | @ChrisMarteNYC
Crystal Hudson | @crystalrhudson
Elsie Encarnación
Eric Dinowitz | @EricDinowitzNYC
Farah N. Louis | @FarahNLouis
Gale A. Brewer | @galeabrewer
Harvey D. Epstein | @HarveyforNY
Jennifer Gutiérrez | @JenGutierrezNYC
Julie Menin | @SpeakerMenin
Julie Won | @CMJulieWon
Justin E. Sanchez | @CMJustinSanchez
Kayla Santosuosso | @kaymsanto
Kevin C. Riley | @KevinCRileyNYC
Lincoln Restler | @LincolnRestler
Linda Lee | @CMLindaLee
Lynn C. Schulman | @Lynn4NYC
Nantasha M. Williams | @NantashaWilliams
Oswald J. Feliz | @OswaldFeliz
Pierina Ana Sanchez | @PiSanchezNYC
Rita C. Joseph | @RitaJosephNYC
Sandra Ung | @CMSandraUng
Sandy Nurse | @SandyforCouncil
Selvena N. Brooks-Powers | @CMBrooksPowers
Shahana K. Hanif | @ShahanaFromBK
Shanel Thomas-Henry | @cmshanelth
Shaun Abreu | @ShaunAbreu
Shekar Krishnan | @voteshekar
Shirley Aldebol | @shirley4council
Tiffany L. Cabán | @tiffany_caban
Ty Hankerson | @TyHankerson
Virginia Maloney | @vmmaloney
Yusef Salaam | @dr_yusefsalaam
@RealNewYorker2 I agree with all except one thing...they are not "retards." They are deliberately destroying NYC. It's their plan.
@RepRashida you wouldn't tell the truth even if it would free palestine. https://t.co/lMf9VTeG2k
@RashidaTlaib, I read your source and your legislation, H.R. 4966.
Your source examines Walmart patents describing what technology could do. It doesn’t establish that Walmart is using customers’ personal information to charge them higher prices.
Walmart denies doing so.
But here’s what your bill actually does.
Section 5 bans electronic shelf labels in grocery stores larger than 10,000 square feet, even when every customer pays the same price.
Section 2 also gives the FTC broad authority to determine what constitutes a grossly excessive grocery price.
You claim you’re stopping surveillance pricing. Why does your legislation also prohibit electronic price tags that aren’t being used for surveillance pricing?
And where’s your evidence that Walmart is actually engaging in the conduct you’re accusing it of?
@SenatorHick Liar. Will you update or retract? Nope.https://t.co/SFJ6keOZeR
FACT CHECK @senatorhick Mr. Nalwamba is an illegal alien w/a removal order issued over 16 years ago. Your claims that he wasn’t given a phone call are FALSE as we can see him in the below image making 1 of 2 calls minutes before his release and evidenced by the fact that his...
@HQNewsNow "republican operative?" No. proUSA citizen. And I know he did not do it on purpose.
@samlee31624987 One trick pony connected by web.
Every. single. post.
Poor thing.
@StopAntisemites thank you
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Fırat
Seen from Turkey
Jabersss
Seen from Netherlands
evli gizli677
Seen from Turkey
SWEET MOM
Seen from France
Anass Dz🇩🇿
Seen from Algeria
MERAH JAMBU
Seen from Indonesia
Kuroneko
Seen from India
bokep Tante Porno Ngentot Tiktok Viral Mesum
Seen from Singapore
Brooks
Seen from United States
Antalya Merkez Sex
Seen from Turkey
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
111.8M 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