Gaza Agreement ; Hamas prepares for unity government.

Rabbinical dynasties from Spain, Morocco, and Germany have always settled in palestine as have many other 'european' jews for centuries. Their ancestors are from there so its not surprising, it was jewish land until the the arab conquests. There are two palestinian states, Israel and Jordan. There are 21 other arab states besides Jordan. Israel or (palestine) as the romans named it has always been historically jewish. Some of my family has lived there for centuries. We have just as much claim to our own land as the arabs do to theirs which is much larger than ours considering they have occupied the berber lands of north africa and the kurdish and assyrian areas of iraq. The people who claim to be 'palestinian' claim to be arabs. Arabs are from arabia not palestine. They have a right to live there, but they also must recognize that jews have a right to live there. And they shouldn't obsess on jewish religious denominations which mean nothing in terms of ancestry.

 

Then any State that considers itself to be in any shape or form civilized will jail you.

 

Furthermore, I'm afraid that your attempts to cloak Israeli actions as justifiable on the basis that such actions are underpinned by a supposed legal imperative in relation to Israeli-State policy applicable to the OT is a non-starter. Israel has certain obligations as an occupying power under international law in the OT. It's violations of the said law has implications for this policy. It is illegal to conquer another territory by force. It therefore follows that the occupation is illegal and any violent actions by the occupiers against the occupied must, by virtue of logical deduction, also be concomitantly illegal. Aristotelian formal logic is the bane of Israeli apologists.

 

What are you talking about? Who is throwing stones at who and why?

 

Why stop there. Shoot them for possession of rocks. Bulldoze the homes of suspected stone-throwers. Fascists can make their own rules. NeoZionists already do.

 

So you're agreeing that indigenous Palestinians should shoot illegal squatters that threaten them.

 

if a settler tries to steal stuff or hurt people, they can be shot.

- - - Updated - - -

um....no.

- - - Updated - - -

lol!!!!!

why would a state jail someone for defending themselves?

 

absolutely false, utter legal nonsense, it's completely legal to conquer another territory by force during wars in the first place. There is no law demanding that warring parties stop at their borders in time of war.

International law regulates occupations, it does not ban them, it does ban annexations, which btw has never stopped you from making hundreds of posts in a feeble attempt to whitewash Putin's annexation of parts of Ukraine.

 

You realize that was in 1947, correct? The events of 2011 unfolded as so: There was a Palestinian delegation to the U.N.. Imagine that, the Palestinians not resorting to terrorism, a good first step right? Wrong! War monger Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't fond of the possibility of a legitimate Palestine, so he threatened to starve them into compliance! And Obama, the political coward that he is, sided ever so-softly with Netanyahu.

But the Palestinians stuck to their grounds and got Non-observer status. The fight for Palestine's equality and world recognition however has only truly just begun. But with the E.U largely on their side, it's only a matter of time before the Apartheid State becomes a true democracy.

 

This is probably going to come as a very, very bitter pill but.........war itself is illegal

Certainly it does. Customary law simply does not permit the invasion of other people's countries . It happens, illegally, and when it does there are laws which govern the behaviour of the perpetrator. When it does happen, illegally, the matter must be addressed by the Security Council under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Security Council addressed the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine by way of UNSCR 242- which is still outstanding to this day.

Clearly, when international law states that territory can never be gained by means of force it also means that territory can never be permanently occupied by means of force. It's the same thing. When occupations do occur they are illegal and must be terminated according to Security Council Resolutions. There is no such animal as a ' permanent temporary ' occupation- it's a conflict of terms. Israel's occupation was terminated by Resolution 242.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss Crimea- or I'll report the post as off-topic. The short answer is that Crimea was never legally Ukrainian. New thread, please.

 

Occupations must be ended if so ruled by Security Council Resolution. Israel's has been addressed.
Israel has no legal basis for occupying Palestine, none. Its ' self-defence' plea has already been struck down

I can back anything I post regarding international law with authoritative references. Why don't YOU try to construct a legal basis for the illegal occupation of Palestine and post it here for shredding ?

What an insane notion.

 

Rhetorical flourishes aside, the idea that Israel can objectively be wiped off the map, given America's unconditional support of its fellow rogue state, is complete bunkum.

 

After what happened in Ukraine, hardly anyone will take America's guarantees at face value, Japan does not and Israel has always known that when push comes to shove it can rely on itself only.


Sorry to burst your bubble but Israel does not want to lose a million people in the next war either, even if it comes out victorious and not wiped off the map. Unlike their arab enemies, the Israelis value life, not death.

 

Yep, fair enough, 242 ruled for the Israel's withdrawal conditioned on peace, cessation of hostilities, normalization of relations and negotiated secured borders, the conditions that the arab world found totally unacceptable.

Wow, I agree with you again, twice in one post, that must be a record...your idea that the Crimea was not legally part of Ukraine and that Putin's invasion to recapture it is thus justified does border on insanity.

 

Cart before horse again. All of the positive demands of Resolution 242 center on Israel's withdrawal. Peace etc. are not possible until Israel complies .


Zionists, go home. And take Yanqui with you.

 

Nonsense, the resolution worked with Egypt and Jordan as intended, the withdrawal was part of the conprehensive peace treaty. Something tells me that they know better than you do. LOL

 

If it wasn't for the involvement of the Empire of Chaos in Ukraine, Putin wouldn't of got involved in Crimea in the first place. In terms of Israel, America would not see its key strategic outpost fall by the way side - absolutely no way in a million years. Your Arab racism is sickening.

 

Regardless of the real or imaginary US involvement in Ukraine, Putin invaded a neighboring UN member state in good standing and annexed part of its territory....In the eyes of the entire planet, the UN, international law it makes Putin a war criminal, it makes Russia a rogue state.


It makes Russia a criminal rogue state even in your views, based on your history of endless posts about illegality of invasions and especially annexations. Yet you are desprately and futily trying to point finger elsewhere. Shame!

 

Russia, in the circumstances, was faced with no alternative other than to act illegally.

 

I believe that both the Crimeans and the Russians have a very good case for removing Crimea from the Ukrainian sphere of influence.
Crimeans were never consulted about being hived off to Ukraine by Krushchev. The legality of that is very spurious.
Krushchev did so without the approval of the Supreme Soviet- certainly illegal in contemporary Russia.
The recent Crimean referendum on rejoining Russia was almost unanimously in favour.

Now, if laws do not take account of those whom they purport to protect then they must be spurious laws indeed. The forthcoming unity government in Palestine will, i don't doubt, have the assistances of the cream of the world's international law teams. God help any Israeli attempt to challenge it - or even to defend itself against the mammoth list of terrible charges which will be brought against Israel in the fullness of time.

 

Seriously?

So using your logic, "Israel in the circumstances, Israel was faced with no alternative but to act illegally".

doesn't sound like nearly as good a justification when you change countries, wot?

 

Are you claiming to have evidence of a Palestinian referendum asking Israel to invade it ?

 

read my response again.

I make no claim. I merely point out the ridiculousness of the statement trout made.