[000:00:00;00] we follow our international obligations, but at least the capacities that exist, for example, what comes to my mind and according to the petitions i had at the beginning of your service, if we consider those two assumptions, if it is an armed attack, it means the use of military force against the israeli regime. well, we have the right to legitimate defense in the territory, and this actually goes back to our military power and actually what we want to do, now a parenthesis. first of all, there is a question of urgency, there is a question of necessity , there is a question of proportionality, and in fact, to ward off the danger, that means you should stop until you have warded off that threat or that danger, if you want to continue beyond that.

let this itself again in fact. it is a violation, it is a criminal act. but in the second assumption that if you assume that this is through a terrorist act and it does not reach the threshold of an armed attack, in my opinion , this is my interpretation. let's say that we should look in a general context, we mean the islamic republic of iran with an accumulation of terrorist acts or sub-terrorist acts under the support of a regime and vandalism in various forms, whether against our infrastructures, against places, etc. it has been done against our people, which if we actually look at these as a whole, in my opinion, this creates the right for the islamic republic of iran that to stop this series of actions, a

proportionate reaction should be made, and in fact, in compliance with that do the requirements for the use of military force . if not, we want to have very traditional interpretations. well, this is a terrorist act and it does not reach the threshold of an armed rope, so we should not do anything. this means that we have to wait for more bitter actions every day. therefore, while those legal guidelines or we consider those legal standards , you must have a definitive answer and again see it in the framework of international law, we do not want to say that international law is bad, international law is necessary, but the reality of international law in its current form is that it cannot even to defend himself until he actually wants to defend the security of the countries . what is your insistence to adhere to? our insistence is because we don't want to show ourselves as a country that doesn't follow any rules and laws or at least

what it has signed. we are not committed, but the regime in front of you is showing this in practice look, that regime is also supported . look, that regime is an imposed regime , but we are a country that has a civilizational and historical history. it takes and is imposed by force and continues by force . the advisory opinion of the international court of justice, which was issued 13 days ago , says the same about the continuation of the occupation. it creates responsibility and commitment, which is the main pillar the united nations judiciary is saying that countries should not recognize this state of occupation , they should not

help the zionist regime, the occupying regime, in fact, they should do it so that it returns to the borders of 1967, at least from the point of view of the united nations, but from the perspective of the palestinians, when you look at he has the right, he says no, you are actually illegal since 1948, give him this, this is actually the existing structure, the aggressor has a safer margin than the oppressed or the victim . . israel's act of aggression does america repeatedly violated yemen and other places. where , in fact, an international organization wants to get involved with these. but the country is actually weak or a third world country does even a very small action. the european union, which is useless at all , has nothing to do with this, and actually imposes sanctions against it . but where are the sanctions of the

european union against the zionist regime now? the un sanctions against the zionist regime, dr. khan correctly pointed out why the seventh chapter about the actions of the zionist regime is not activated now because the fact that there is actually a power behind the zionist regime that strengthens some kind of abnormality or abnormality in international law, this in general originates from the same injustice that the countries that are permanent members of the united nations security council have the right to have. having nuclear weapons means that it is legitimate for them to have this weapon and in the same way they have the unfair right of veto. for this reason, those who are under their protection should have this right in some way. wherever it is in their favor, they will support it now, but they will not do it at all. they have nothing to do with international systems. we have a term that says that the agent must always

be competent to act, that is, competent. well, the united nations wants to create democracy. the principle is that it should be based on democracy. is the united nations really based on democracy? if it is based on democracy, why should the vote of a country or the opposition of a country actually change the fate of the international community? this means that it is not based on democracy and it is not fair, so it cannot seek justice. i meant that we need the rules of international law, but at the same time the rules of the existing international law, the structure of the existing international law is neither fair, nor efficient, nor democratic, therefore. we should move towards correcting these, very well, but in general, you believe that the islamic republic of iran, based on the same legal articles that exist in iran international

, has the right to legitimate defense and act with the interpretation that yes, thank you, mr. azimi, an international law expert , is also on our communication line. hello and good night, in the name of allah , the most merciful. at the service of your excellency and experts respected and also dear viewers , i offer greetings and courtesy, thank you mr. azimi, in your opinion , what is the nature of this terrorist act in terms of international law, and to what extent is the hand of the islamic republic of iran to punish for a countermeasure, or to put it more precisely, the bloodlust of the islamic republic it leaves iran open. yes, see, this action violates rights in several ways. it is considered international that your respected experts must address it. i am just pointing out a few points in this context . you can see the fourth paragraph of article 2 of the united nations charter states that the members of the united nations in pursuit of the goals

the united nations must observe the following principles, which the article states that in its international relations , it should refrain from resorting to threats and the use of force against the horizontal integrity or independence. the political of any country and in any other way that contradicts the goals of the united nations should be avoided. it is very clear that this action in the sovereign territory of the islamic republic of iran was carried out by another country called the zionist regime , so this action is considered a clear violation of article 2, clause 4 of the united nations charter, no one doubts this. there is one point that we are discussing. we have a resolution under violation the title of the resolution on the definition of aggression until 2001

did not consider terrorist operations and terrorist acts under the concepts of aggression, but we did not have anything in written form . 13 73 after the cases of the twin towers. and there he clearly declares terrorism as an act of aggression and declares terrorism as an example of aggression and there he clearly says that terrorist acts are a threat to international peace and security. countries and individuals in their own defense emphasize in this resolution and then specify that countries should fight this threat to peace and the threat to international peace and security with necessary measures. confront terrorism and then the

security council asks the countries to actually cooperate with each other by fighting such actions, that is, we can now cooperate with the same front of resistance, that is, the country of iraq , the country of lebanon, against the terrorist action of the zionist regime. let's unite and cooperate let's be honest, this cooperation is in accordance with international law, and another point that is actually considered an innovation in this resolution and is considered new is that it states that every country has the duty to refrain from organizing, inciting or participating in terrorist acts in the other country should refrain. see that the resolutions of the un security council that are approved under the seventh chapter are binding for all countries. in this resolution 13 73 , it states that every country has a duty to

refrain from taking action or even participating in terrorist acts in other countries. our consulate in syria in targeting the martyrs of the imun core and in all other terrorist acts, such as the killing of martyr fakhrizadeh, all of them are included in this clause of this resolution, and even the security council has made it mandatory, that is, the security council has the duty to act based on the seventh chapter. convene a meeting like other acts of aggression , recognize this action as aggression, condemn it and take action myself . well, just like you said, because of the special structure of the security council with the authoritarian structure that exists there, the security council is not capable of doing such a thing. now this point that what is being said here is that when something called aggression is mentioned, that is, it is considered an act of aggression

, the element of legitimate defense is raised against it, and the element of legitimate defense is stated in article 51 of the united nations charter as an inherent right in this resolution as well. the inherent right of countries is known and seen. now the question is what kind of defense can countries do against a terrorist act . when a country attacks another country's sovereignty or a country's territory, the appropriate type of defense is, well, naturally. the armed forces stand in front of him and prevent him from moving his aggressors will be killed and he will be returned to his own land. now the question is about terrorism, which is considered a repulsive act. it is done once and it is over . what is the international procedure in dealing with terrorist acts? when the resolution was issued, when resolution 13 73 was issued

, how did the united states of america act with al-qaeda , then based on the same, we can design a procedure and say that this procedure exists. the united states of america attacked afghanistan and knew its right. as the legitimate defense of al-qaeda destroy it, then bin laden was captured and killed, and even according to what was said, his body was thrown into the sea. this procedure and these actions of the united states of america were not opposed by any country. therefore, the defense of the defense against terrorism is that the country that is the victim of the terrorist must use all of itself to destroy the roots of the terrorist that threatens it , to destroy the source of the terrorist and the necessary punishment. for the country that

has done such a thing, make a provision so that such an act will not be done again. legitimate defense it finds this concept. therefore, we even have the right to attack the zionist regime with all our power in such a way as to punish binyamin netanyahu, the givers and takers, to the maximum. i want to say here that some may say that we are doing this. it is not defined as opposite to egypt in the dictionary, but it is considered as a defense, it is considered a defense , it is considered a defense, the same meaning is that you eliminate the aggression until when article 51, of course , says until the un security council enters. naturally, the united nations security council entered it is not possible that when a security council does not come in , the victim country has this inherent right to defend with all

its strength in the form of an all-out action that can destroy the origin of the terrorist and do something to prevent the possibility of terrorist action. this is the most legitimate thing that we can do. we can do it, which , naturally, the country's officials will determine the type and manner . thank you very much, mr. azimi. there is , thank you for the country that is being violated, and i bid you farewell, madam dr. now, in general, according to these capacities that exist in the international law system. but wherever a terrorist act is being carried out, state terrorism is also happening. a government and a regime are behind this incident . how much is the requirement ? to what extent are we obliged to a regime that

does not adhere to any of these principles? now we want to act completely according to international laws and standards, one thing that we must do. note that this is all the requirements of international law are related to the relationship of the state. two legitimate governments that were established based on the legitimate standards of international law. if we consider a government as an occupier, we do not give any credit to its existence in terms of international law and custom. so is this government at all , we are bound by international rules? let's keep in mind this is a point that many of our colleagues in the field of international law say that the occupation of the dujour government based on the

international style did not come into existence. it was your guardianship, then it was returned to the palestinians , they came there and divided it around 5. the occupying government is the occupying power. this is in the text of the un resolutions, but we say that since 1948 , it is the occupying power, so when someone is the occupying power, it was the operation of the 7th of october against the occupying power

. liberation means that the work of liberation has happened, and therefore we must separate these things according to the international style and rules about who, about which system. behaving internationally, we should treat the occupation as i said, until the center of danger is removed, until the occupation is removed, as far as the security council is concerned, it belongs to the governments of the two countries and the international legitimacy. there is a theory that many professors today believe that when there is an occupation, all the liberation movements should be supported by the 1977 protocol added to the geneva conventions

of 1949. all countries should help the liberation movements. and the one who doesn't help has committed a crime. now you see 50 uprisings it will be done in the american congress. regarding whether this is really based on international rules , it will happen in the united states if it has to. victims support. but there, when the person who is responsible for the killing of several tens of thousands of civilians who have no military role at all, when this is encouraged , are all international documents really being violated, but no one can say this because it

is actually a place of assassination and a place of sacrifice. it is appropriate if such an action is taken what happened to mr. haniyeh was done in tehran in a european country. it was done in the united states , what was the reaction of those countries , what was the reaction of the united nations, just make a comparison and then see where the islamic republic of iran really is and what action it has the right to take. in addition to the doctor's comments, we have the nature of our confrontation with this regime. it is completely different, according to them , we have an occupation regime in front of us, which is not at all compared to the international systems. see, i think that the regime itself is the occupation. actually , when we talk about the geneva conventions

, the protocols, the rules related to the occupation, we are talking about international law, so we cannot be outside of international law, that is. the right to resistance that is actually created for the people of the occupied territories and the countries can actually support them . taken from international law , international law, but the international law that talks about the governments is not there, the international law that the occupier talks about, but in fact it is talking he says that yes, you should treat an occupier like this, that is, there is international law, we say, for example, the international court of justice comes and specifies five facts in his recent advisory theory, for example, one of them is that governments should not be in this situation. in fact , they should recognize the occupation situation, they should not help israel if it wants to continue this situation, well, this

is what international law says, so we have the capacity that is in the heart of international law, and we should use it, i think now. islamic countries , this is the best opportunity to read from get out of that passive state because here we actually see a unity from the ideological point of view . and it is sunni , and therefore the islamic countries should now stand on the right side of history and rise against the actual occupier . the islamic conference organization should act now. the islamic countries that actually recognized the zionist regime should expel their ambassadors and return their ambassadors. see if today was yesterday or today, the turkish embassy in tel aviv raised its flag at half-mast. yes, they protested a lot. for example, in turkey

, go to erdogan there, in fact, it shows that if the islamic countries are really united, naturally, we will not see this boldness and arrogance from the zionist regime or even from america , which is what you see, for example, the emirates of qatar and some other islamic countries did not condemn this event, which means that the weakness actually goes back to the activists. no, in fact, the rules of the game itself , i mean, it is true that there is a weakness in the rules of the game, but it still has capacities that we can use, and the last thing is that rumi's saying, if you do evil with evil, then what is the difference, if we also want to follow the same path as the zionist regime, then what will be the difference between us and a child-killing regime ? those actions we should only. we should not emphasize the military option, which means that we should actually consider a package

that includes many measures , be diplomatic, hard legal and soft legal , and put all of these together so that we can achieve a good result. thank you very much. thank you very much, dr the legal analysis that we presented, dr. heminzadeh, we used a lot of sarkar's analysis, and

also from mr. azimi, who wrote. like this image from the heart of gaza, where

there is hope in the hands of a living child among the ruins. the pictures speak like this one or two images of ismail martyred in the sky by a lebanese artist or the one by a palestinian artist for him who joined many martyrs. for this, the directors wrote a note by abolqasem talebi who said that martyrdom is the art

of god's men. they said in the video and voice of haniyeh what he did last night in our dear tehran and martyred the party . the regime is coming and the world has not seen happiness in spite of it and will not want it. in fact, martyrdom in this field is a great victory that cannot be achieved by anyone, and the reward for fighting is to fight against the dirtiest and most criminal regime. which actually exists in our contemporary history, along with the ongoing reactions

, there is also a graphic work titled "bloodshots of haniyeh aziz" on the way. chapter 3 that day, when we were returning home from the paddy field, the weather was sunny, my mother was reading poetry on the way, and the aunts were shaking hands. i was not familiar with the scene behind the window , i was slowly staring at the view until the words of the great forces started to fade, my ice melted, and that was enough for me to criticize the parliament again. the sea was blue as far as the eye could see. the waves were crawling so far that there was nothing left to cover the woman's clothes. go to the world of stories with iransada's narrative books. you can

download iransada application from iransada.ir. so easily islamic iran. in the name of god. hello. his body is ismail haniyeh. the head of the political office of hamas after offering prayers in the presence of officials and official delegations of different countries jahan was legislated and buried in doha, qatar. the first vice president also traveled to qatar in his first foreign trip to participate in the commemoration ceremony of martyr ismail haniyeh. mr. aref also