3 Responses

  1. Emmanuel Tierra at |

    Professor Dershowitz fails to grasp that the USA Constitution has International Treaty obligations to the UN Charter:

    Whereof, the UN Organization of International Agency of its membership has International Law obligations to the People of the UNGA 181 State of Palestine

    Whereof, with UNGA 181 of November 29th 1947 the UN Organization, itself in accordance with UN Charter Article 81, contracted with the People of the Mandate of Palestine of Trusteeship Terms in accordance with UN Charter Article 80 Terms of Partition with UNGA 181.

    UN Organization shall not dissolve itself: Therefore, the context of the League of Nations [LON]dissolution WITHOUT the comparative [LON] Administrator of United Kingdom having International Law obligations to the People of the Mandate of Palestine would NOT grant State of Israel sovereignty of UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries. A., Arab State territory when incorporation of self-government is attainable.

    I Professor Derschowitz is on point with two aspects of law that are accurate:

    PH 13
    “‘ American appellate courts will decide the facts and the law of a case based on what the best advocate says they are. That’s why I win!’

    “To one public international law class Professor Derschowitz reportedly sneered, ‘And you can forget about claims of human rights based on international law and universal standards of morality. You’ll never win s— with that malarkey.’”

    II The best advocate outlines how the issue in question is defined of context:

    1 By pre-established precepts of law,e.g. precedents;

    2.Contextual principles of law, e.g, qualifiers of specific law;

    3 & how this issue in questions should be understood,e.g., conceptualize the issue, vis-a-vis precedent case law & specific law being applied to the context.

    III International Human Rights Law has two separate classes:

    1 Laws of Armed Conflict [LOAC]aka Humanitarian Law

    2 UN Nations “Declarations of Morality”

    IV International law is contractual law: Whereof, it is only binding on nation-states that have entered in Agreement through treaty.

    1 The greater the numerical of contracting parties the greater the degree it being applicable.

    2 “The Norm” could be defined as being that point where 51% of UN members are contracting parties.

    3 “Customs & norms” is that LOAC that has been tested & survived the political challenge to its validity which are historical War Crimes Tribunals.

    V The only universal nation-state international agency is the United Nations Organization:

    1 The multi-national agreement is premised the concept of “agreeing to disagree” diplomatically as opposed to bi-laterally engaging in warfare.

    2 However, it should be understood that the enforcement of international law is not premised to be universal of originating from the UN as if it were a Government of nation-states.

    2.1 Diplomacy is waging war through non-military means aka power calculus.

    VI International Law is like all other law: Precedents, qualifiers, & conceptualization.

    1 Declarative UNGA “morality Resolutions” on children rights, women’s rights, etc are subjective of interpretation by respective cultures and have never been tested nor challenged which makes them worthless to apply.

    2 LOAC itself has untested law & laws open to interpretation.

    2.1 “Customs & norms” two qualifiers should be the guiding parameters for application of LOAC within he context of advocating enforcement.

    2.2 The only pre-enforced International Human Rights Law is LOAC of War Crimes Tribunal precedents:

    VII War Crimes Tribunals

    1 WII Military War Crimes were agencies incorporated with a defined expiration at the conclusion of execution of sentence with the object of preventing further political debate because once the agency expired appeals could not be entertained through a non-existent agency.

    2 Present USA Military Commissions at GTMO are a political disaster for two reasons:

    2.1 Violates the very same LOAC that it premises to enforce;

    2.1.1 Whereof, LOAC mandates that War Crimes Tribunals be held in the territory of the nation-state where the alleged War Crime occurred.

    2.2 No Trials have happened to date: Should they happen they could be appealed because the Military Commission has not expired.

    3 UNGA 181 State of Palestine War Crimes Tribunal
    3.1 Field War Crimes Tribunal
    3.2 Future State of Palestine Tribunal

    4 3rd Nation-State universality of LOAC jurisdiction

    5 International Criminal Court:

    5.1 POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS, ICC would acquire jurisdiction for UNGA State of Palestine territory

    5.1.1 UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries, A., Arab State is the territory of the State of Palestine

    5.1.2 WHY the present USA auspices negotiations of “gerrymandering” the borders through “territorial swaps” to remove those acts of (IV)Geneva Convention Article 49 War Crimes from the ICC Territorial context

    6 UN War Crimes Tribunal: UN Charter Charter III., Article 7.,PH 2., UNSC or UNGA Subsidiary Organ

    7 LOAC UNSC 242 Multi-National Military War Crimes Tribunals

    VIII International Criminal Court [ICC] vis-a-vis International Court of Justice [ICOJ]

    1 ICC context: LOAC vis-a-vis Israeli War Crimes

    1.1 POLITICAL COURSE: PINC_G Treat with USA for bi-lateral exclusion from ICC referrals

    1.2 PINC_G accept the probability indictment of Palestinians for War Crimes:

    2 ICOJ context: Palestine vis-a-vis Israel.

    2.1 UNGA 181 Part I., C., Declaration, Chapter 3., ph 2 “International Conventions: (a)The State is bound by all international agreements and conventions, both general & specific which Palestine has become a party…”

    2.2 LON UK Administrator contracted Mandate of Palestine into UN Charter with UNGA 181

    2.2.1 UNGA as UN Administrator contracted UNGA 181 to (IV)Geneva Convention in its numerous UNGAR vis-a-vis Israeli occupation

    2.3 A/RES/67/19 as UN non-member Observer State : Statute of ICOJ, Article 36

    2.1.3 Full fledged UN Member

    3 ICOJ Article 59 “The judgment of the court has no binding force except between the parties and respect of that particular case”

    3.1 The case for petition for ICOJ resolution is UNGA 181 Part III Jerusalem UN Sovereignty & NOT State of Israel occupation of UNGA 181 Palestine

    3.2 The decision would be binding on all members of the UN Organization

    4 Recommendations:


  2. Emmanuel Tierra at |

    Israeli vis-a-vis Palestinian approaches of:

    Israelis de-legitimizing State of Palestine & Palestinians who focus on de-legitimizing State of Israel are synonymous of ABSURD actions.

    However, are no synonymous of context; Whereof, State of Israel has “de facto & dejure” existence vis-a-vis State of Palestine has “de jure” but not “de facto” existence because of Israeli occupation & siege.

    1 Israelis focus on de-legitimizing the State of Palestine:

    1.2 State of Israel has no need to legitimize itself to the UN Community of Nations, neither to the peoples of the respective nation-states.

    1.3 State of Israel Sionist continued attempts are premised to “legitimize” their de facto war criminal occupation.

    1.3.1 Palestinians cannot military defeat Israelis: However, Palestinians can defeat Israelis diplomatically through international law applications.

    2 People of the UNGA State of Palestine do need to Legitimize before all humankind

    2.1 The People of the State of Palestine

    2.2 Resistance of the People of the State of Palestine

    2.4 Governance of the State of Palestine

    2.5 The [UNGA 181] State of Palestine

    2.6 Government of the People of the State of Palestine.

    3 Palestinian focus:

    3.1 Palestinians focused on de-legitimizing State of Israel as opposed to legitimizing the State of Palestine are working on two negatives of 0 + 0 = 0 Result/success orientated.

    3.2 Palestinians focused on legitimizing State of Palestine are 1 + 0 = 1 of positive direction metrics.

    3.3 Palestinians focused on Legitimizing State of Palestine & legitimizing State of Israel are 1 + 1 = 2 positive direction metrics.

    3.3.1 Vacates the Israeli propagated falsehood that extremist pursue to de-legitimize State of Israel of “pushing them into the sea” premise since 1947 for encroaching on UNGA 181 Palestine territory.

    4 Israeli Sionists are focused of dispossessing Palestinians from their UNGA 181 National Rights to territory/sovereignty defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries, A., Arab State.

    4.1 This can only be effected by de-legitimizing Palestinian UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries sovereignty

    4.2.1 De-legitimizing UNGA 181 itself.

    5 Legitimizing Palestinian National Rights, sovereignty, & territory is dependent on affirming International Law as the governing authority:

    5.1 UN Charter: Whereof, the context of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict resolution is pre-existent of UN Charter Chapter XII Article 80 Terms of Partition of the Mandate State of Palestine, into two states.

    5.1.1 Mandates recognizing the “de facto” State of Israel within its “de jure’ UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries, B.,Jewish State territory/sovereignty

    5.2 LOAC (IV) Geneva Convention Article 49 that defines transfer of foreign Israeli citizenry into occupied UNGA 181 Palestine West Bank as WAR CRIMES

    6 Question: How can Israelis attempt to legitimize their war criminal enterprise of plunder?

    6.1 Answer: “Land for peace” of Palestinian land for Israeli peace of UNSC 242 non-compliance & LOAC (IV) Geneva non-compliance

    6.1.1 Israelis want cession of Palestinian territory occupied in 1949 & territorial transfer of land Swaps to legitimize their war criminal settlements of circumventng UN Charter Article 80 Terms of UNGA 181 which established the State of Israel.

    6.1.2 Israelis premise “no return” of refugees; no compensation to refugees; of UNGA 194 non-compliance

    7 State of Israel’s Accession to UN Charter with UNGA 273 of May 11th 19489 “unreservedly” accepted the UNGA 181 & UNGA 194 stipulations

    8 Palestinian position:

    8.1 No territorial cession, No territorial sale, No Territorial transfers.

    8.1.1 Options: Lease or political administration condominium of UNGA 181 Palestine territory occupied in 1949 by State of Israel of Negev, North Gaza, Beersheba, & Galilee.

    8.1.2 UNSC 242 Compliance is non-negotiable vis-a-vis UNGA 181 Palestine West Bank & Gaza Territories

    8.2 Honor UNGA 181, Honor UNSC 242, Honor (IV)Geneva Convention.

    8.3 Honor UNGA 181 Part III Jerusalem of UN Sovereignty.

    8.3.1 UNSC 242 Compliance: Mandates political transfer of East Jerusalem to State of Jordan for the interim period until UN Organization assumes political administration for its UN Sovereignty Jerusalem.

    9 Recommendations.


  3. B.Benhamid at |

    Dershovitz’s image creates severe nightmares… adding insult to injuries.



Leave a Reply