mihai martoiu ticu @[email protected]

Vrije meningsuiting is niet bedoeld om naar beneden te schoppen nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/12…

Mona Keijzer moet aantonen dat Palestijnen vreedzame middelen hebben om zich van de illegale bezetting te bevrijden. Kunnen Israël en Nederland met rationele argumenten overtuigd worden om hun juridische plichten na te komen? Kunnen westerlingen met rationele argumenten overtuigd worden? Kunnen Palestijnen Nederland of Israël in een internationaal hof aanklagen en dwingen om hun juridische plichten na te komen? Zolang Keijzer niet aantoont dat Palestijnen vreedzame middelen hebben en zolang Nederland zijn juridische plichten niet vervult, kan zij de Palestijnen niet vertellen op welke manier ze zich moeten bevrijden. mihai.nl/internationaal…

De Westelijke Jordaanoever is bezet. Het Internationaal Gerechtshof heeft zojuist in de adviesopinie van 2024 verklaard dat de bezetting illegaal is en zo snel mogelijk moet worden beëindigd. Daarnaast moeten de nederzettingen onmiddellijk worden ontmanteld. reportersonline.nl/de-westelijke-… En het hof zei dat de Palestijnen het recht hebben op een staat in de volledig bezette gebieden.👇

@martoiu Er is geen illegale bezetting. En verder hoop ik dat Nederland wel iets vindt van terreur zoals die op 7 okt 2023 werd gebezigd door Hamas.

Trouwens, zolang Nederland zijn juridische plichten niet nakomt om te zorgen dat Israël geen oorlogsmisdaden pleegt (bijvoorbeeld geen nederzettingen bouwt) en dat de Palestijnen een onafhankelijke staat stichten, hebben Nederlanders geen recht om de Palestijnen te vertellen hoe zij zich van de illegale bezetting mogen bevrijden. Want het Westen is niet de eigenaar, noch de baas van de wereld.

@MonaKeijzer Gelul. Nederland heeft in 2024 voor het Internationaal Gerechtshof getuigd dat gewapend verzet legaal is.

“Als alle middelen zijn opgeraakt, blijft alleen gewelddadig verzet nog over en is doden niet alleen geoorloofd, maar een noodzakelijkheid geworden.” Echt gestoord. Je zet jezelf zo buiten elk normaal gesprek. trouw.nl/verdieping/lot…

@RVeelo A new bill seeks to introduce a mandatory death penalty for killings intended to "harm the State of Israel and the revival of the Jewish people in its land." The bill exclusively targets Palestinians. lto.de/recht/meinung/…

Israëli’s ook

@Nuancefactcheck @mboudry Uti possidetis was not a general principle of international law in 1948. See Lalonde, S. (2002). Determining boundaries in a conflicted world: the role of uti possidetis👇

@martoiu @mboudry No, sorry, customary international law doesn't have imaginary borders. It needs actual exceptions. What is the exception? Are you telling me it doesn't apply to iraq? To naaru? Why do you have an imaginary ban on 1948, but nothing else?

Is it a coincidence that the country to which people attribute near-mystical political power and influence is also the world’s only Jewish state—which has roughly the size and population of New Jersey? I wonder if someone has ever coined a term for this obsession? Strong piece by the always excellent @coldxman.

You have to prove that it was a global norm, and you can only prove it by showing that it was the practice in the Middle East, since it is standard international law knowledge that it was a regional norm in the Americas. It became global through decisions made during the decolonization of Africa and Asia.

@martoiu @mboudry Why on earth would doing so be necessary?

@Nuancefactcheck @mboudry There was no global norm. When Israel negotiated its borders with other countries, neither Israel nor the other countries mentioned uti possidetis. See Lalonde, S. (2002). Determining boundaries in a conflicted world: the role of uti possidetis

@martoiu @mboudry (so, a global norm)

@Nuancefactcheck @mboudry 1. Uti Possidetis Juris did not exist in Palestine in 1948. It was a regional norm in Latin and South America.

@martoiu @mboudry This is a whoooooole lot of you not being able to cite anything. Your first point is false (you don't even support it). Your second point is misdirect - Israel DID NOT DECLARE ITS BORDERS in its declaration. Your third point IRONICALLY justifies Israel sovereignty.

1. Uti possidetis juris did not exist in Palestine in 1948. 2. As a rule of international law, once one has admitted something, one cannot go back on it. Israel has repeatedly declared its borders not to be the entirety of Palestine. 3. The Palestinians have the right to self-determination, and that means they have the right to the entire territory where they live. 4. The 29 judges of the International Court did not accept the arguments about uti possidetis juris.

@martoiu @mboudry As you're addressing me elsewhere, is it fair to say you were unable to find a single non-normative argument made against application of UPJ for Israel in ICJ proceedings? Don't you find that...odd? Shouldn't it concern you?

@Nuancefactcheck @mboudry Why are they quoted in other decisions?

@martoiu @mboudry I didn't say they are irrelevant. But neither is an impassioned speech. The question of them being "irrelevant" is you making a strawman because you refuse to answer a simple yes or no. Please address the question. The evasion is speaking volumes.

@Nuancefactcheck @mboudry If they are irrelevant, why do other lawyers and courts quote them?

@martoiu @mboudry Gonna need a yes or no here, not you just repeating to me that AOs are not legally binding. Do you agree with your own source that the rules and procedures of AOs are essentially the same as in contentious proceedings? Not whether they SAY they are, but ARE they?

@Nuancefactcheck @mboudry "Despite having no binding force, the Court’s advisory opinions nevertheless carry great legal weight and moral authority." icj-cij.org/advisory-juris…

@martoiu @mboudry This is a wild, outrageous, easily demonstrated lie. Before I correct it, I'd like to make sure: is it your position that this is accurate? Do you agree with your citation here?

AP I, Art 36: "In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon... a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law."

@ajflach @nrc Gelul. Nederland heeft in 2024 voor het Internationaal Gerechtshof getuigd dat gewapend verzet legaal is.

Walgelijk… De chef opinie van @nrc vindt doden van Israëliërs geoorloofd en zelfs noodzakelijk…. Wanneer slaat journalistieke vrijheid om in strafbare opruiing en uitlokking van geweld? trouw.nl/verdieping/lot…

Gelul. Nederland heeft in 2024 voor het Internationaal Gerechtshof getuigd dat gewapend verzet legaal is.

@Sywert Gelul. Nederland heeft in 2024 voor het Internationaal Gerechtshof getuigd dat gewapend verzet legaal is.

Linkse "journalist" Lotfi El Hamidi (NRC/Groene Amsterdammer) over Gaza en Israëliërs: "Als alle middelen zijn opgeraakt, blijft alleen gewelddadig verzet nog over en is doden niet alleen geoorloofd, maar een noodzakelijkheid geworden". Wat gestoord. trouw.nl/verdieping/lot…

If citizen X asks for an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court and the Court says it is illegal to kill citizen Y, the advisory opinion is not binding, but it is authoritative. Citizen X is not free to kill citizen Y. Basic knowledge: "Under the UN Charter and the ICJ Statute, advisory opinions rendered by the ICJ in principle are non-binding. This non-binding character does not mean that such opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the Court's authoritative views on important issues of international law. Moreover, in arriving at its opinion the ICJ follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases between sovereign states. An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.", Bekker, P. H. F. (2014). “The World Court Rules that Israel’s West Bank Barrier Violates International Law.” 8(17). asil.org/insights/volum…

@martoiu @mboudry *not binding

@Nuancefactcheck @mboudry

@martoiu @mboudry There is a sleight-of-hand at play, where advisory opinions are presented as being influential. But anything can be influential. An influencial speech does not mean the speech has the status of law.