When This War Is Over - Palestine Will Be Free

[gipper]

Aha. So when this conflict started with Hamas slaughtering around 1400 innocent Israeli's including women & children & taking hundreds of hostages that was okay, right?

And Jimmy tried to tell you long ago, but your mind is closed. It only accepts propaganda.

 

[MJB12741]

Hamas is a terrorist group founded by your leader Bibi. They do not represent all 2.5 million Gazans who live in an outdoor prison 20 miles by 5 miles, surrounded by one of the most advanced militaries. Hamas has no ability to defend Gaza or pose a serious threat to Israel.

Slaughtering innocent women and children is always a war crime. Stop supporting crime because you ignorantly love Israel.

I just gave you more facts than you’ve ever been able to obtain on your own.

Here's a fact for you. Hamas started this conflict by attacking Israel killing around 1400 innocent Israelis, taking around 200 innocent hostages, many of whom are now dead. Israel retaliates & you & your ilk bitch about it. A fine example of your Palestinian Mentality.

 

[gipper]

Here's a fact for you. Hamas started this conflict by attacking Israel killing around 1400 innocent Israelis, taking around 200 innocent hostages, many of whom are now dead. Israel retaliates & you & your ilk bitch about it. A fine example of your Palestinian Mentality.

You’ve learned nothing. How is that possible?

 

[Shusha]

The Green-Line ceasefire agreement of 1949.

The "Green-Line ceasefire agreement of 1949"? I think you mean the Israel and Jordan General Armistice Agreement and the Israel and Egypt General Armistice Agreement. Dude, at least have the respect to get the names of the treaties correct. Make an effort. I see I am going to have to type them out for you.

Article 2 of the former:
1. The principle-that no military or political advantage should be gained. under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized;
2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in anyway prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of-this. Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

Article 5 of the latter:
2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without' prejudice to the rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

Your "Green-line ceasefire agreement" explicitly states that the Armistice Demarcation Line IS NOT TO BE USED TO PREJUDICE (CHANGE) THE RIGHTS, CLAIMS, and POSITIONS of either Party. Thus this treaty can NOT BE USED as proof of the existence of multiple States having sovereign rights to the territory of the Mandate of Palestine NOR the boundary between them. This is EXPLICIT in the treaties (at the insistence of Jordan and Egypt, btw).

Which Israel signed.

Indeed. Thus preserving ALL of her existing rights, claims, and positions, existing in the remaining treaties I recalled. Your job is to demonstrate how all of those existing rights, claims, and positions were transferred from Israel to another State, with all the pertinent details of to whom, when, and by which treaty.

NONE of your above stated issues - ever mentioned or confirmed that the West-bank and Gaza are supposedly sovereign Israeli territory.

Sure they do. The Mandate for Palestine, as intended, transferred the territory whole to the only State in existence -- Israel -- through both the treaty and binding customary international law. Without a treaty which explicitly CHANGES the territorial integrity of the State of Israel, it remains.

Thanks for CONFIRMING that there is absolutely NO treaty or agreement that would internationally recognize the West-bank and Gaza to be sovereign Israeli territory.

Treaties don't depend on international recognition. They are contracts between Parties. There is no treaty which divides the State of Israel into portions. (This would require Israel's consent).

Unlike the RSA - who's sovereign territory was fully internationally recognized in 1910, and no one mentioning that Negros have any rights.
However the RSA's consistent claim and occupation onto SWA aka Namibia, was NEVER recognized internationally.

While I claim some valid expertise in the Israel/Arab conflict, I am not an expert on RSA and/or SWA. However, international law is actually pretty consistent and I like to learn so I'll get back to you on this part.

 

[Shusha]

Unlike the RSA - who's sovereign territory was fully internationally recognized in 1910 ...

Yes. That sovereign territory did not include SWA. SWA was still a German colony (excepting Walvis Bay). Clearly, prior to 1910 two distinct and separate territories, and after 1910, still two distinct and separate territories. With an established international border. The territorial integrity of the colonies which formed the Union of South Africa transferred to the new State as far as I can determine.

In 1915, the Union of South Africa crossed an international border between its own sovereign territory and German territory, thus occupying foreign territory. By the end of the war, Germany renounced the territory (Treaty of Versailles, 1919), leaving the former German territories to the League of Nations. The Union of South Africa was then tasked as Mandatory (Class C) for the former German territory of South West Africa. And it gets really fun and legally complicated from there.

However the RSA's consistent claim and occupation onto SWA aka Namibia, was NEVER recognized internationally.

Well, yes. Because it was never sovereign South Africa territory. Two separate and distinct territories with different sovereigns.

Here is the difference between the two cases: the Mandate for Palestine was ONE territory with a single sovereign, not two separate and distinct territories with two sovereigns. This whole line of argument is a false analogy.

 

[MJB12741]

So sad that Egypt will not allow any displaced Palestinians in Rafah to enter their country.

 

[MJB12741]

Right on. Don't like Israel's retaliation after being attacked by Hamas? Consider what we did after our USA was atacked.

Sen. Lindsey Graham says Israel should do 'whatever' it has to while comparing the war in Gaza to Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The GOP senator compared Israel’s military operations to the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on Japan in World War II, saying, “Israel, do whatever you have to do.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Kruska]

Well, yes. Because it was never sovereign South Africa territory. Two separate and distinct territories with different sovereigns.

And the West-bank nor Gaza was never sovereign Israel territory - just militarily conquered in 1967 and illegally occupied.

Here is the difference between the two cases: the Mandate for Palestine was ONE territory with a single sovereign, not two separate and distinct territories with two sovereigns. This whole line of argument is a false analogy.

No - the British Mandated Palestine was populated in 1920 by around 1 million Muslim-Christian Palestinians and around 20,000 Jewish Palestinians. And due to immigration policies (solely conducted by Britain) the population of Jewish European IMMIGRANTS swell to almost 700,000 by 1947 - therefore the UN 1947 PARTITION PLAN for a future SEPARATED Palestine (objected by ALL Arab Sates and the Arab League) for a future Jewish State in Palestine (no name given) and a non-Jewish State in Palestine (no name given).

Anyone familiar and KNOWLEDGEABLE (not you) with this issue KNOWS that Israel was internationally acknowledged in 1949 in view of the Zionists having captured occupied already around 25% of the 1947 UN designated non-Jewish territory - and thus recognizing Israels sovereign territory as being defined by the armistice - aka Green Line. (Which did NOT encompass the remaining West-bank and Gaza).

It is also known to anyone familiar and knowledgeable (not you) with this issue - that solely Israel aka it's Zionist government in 1949 refused to acknowledge the Green line to represent a "permanent" border. Since it is known to anyone familiar and knowledgeable (not you) with this issue - that the ZIONIST from latest 1947 onward had planed to claim the entire remaining British Mandated Palestine - solely for themselves. - until TODAY!!

Therefore this will be my last post and reply onto your persistent and idiotic Zionist claim statements.

 

[MJB12741]

And the West-bank nor Gaza was never sovereign Israel territory - just militarily conquered in 1967 and illegally occupied.

No - the British Mandated Palestine was populated in 1920 by around 1 million Muslim-Christian Palestinians and around 20,000 Jewish Palestinians. And due to immigration policies (solely conducted by Britain) the population of Jewish European IMMIGRANTS swell to almost 700,000 by 1947 - therefore the UN 1947 PARTITION PLAN for a future SEPARATED Palestine (objected by ALL Arab Sates and the Arab League) for a future Jewish State in Palestine (no name given) and a non-Jewish State in Palestine (no name given).

I feel a two state solution can only result in two states at endless war.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the West-bank nor Gaza was never sovereign Israel territory - just militarily conquered in 1967 and illegally occupied.

Was it sovereign territory before 1967?

 

[Kruska]

I feel a two state solution can only result in two states at endless war.

If radical Zionist's stay in power, and therefore Muslim radicals such as Hamas as well - off course.
And that is exactly onto what the radical Zionists are counting on. Incite as much hatred and suppression onto Palestinians as possible to ensure a retaliation by Muslim radicals.- see e.g. Oct. 7th. (a radical Zionist dream/expectation became true).

 

[Shusha]

Israel >snip< refused to acknowledge the Green line to represent a "permanent" border.

Yes, of course. Because the Armistice Agreements explicitly required the Demarcation Lines NOT be permanent boundaries. (Confirmed by both Jordan and Egypt in subsequent treaties).

You can't just hand wave away treaties, and pretend they don't exist. That is lawlessness. Arguing that the UN can abrogate treaties between States sets up a dangerous custom, not to mention a violation of the UN Charter.

 

[Kruska]

Yes, of course. Because the Armistice Agreements explicitly required the Demarcation Lines NOT be permanent boundaries. (Confirmed by both Jordan and Egypt in subsequent treaties).

You can't just hand wave away treaties, and pretend they don't exist. That is lawlessness. Arguing that the UN can abrogate treaties between States sets up a dangerous custom, not to mention a violation of the UN Charter.

Again you post the well known and totally unsubstantiated Zionist claim, and spread misleading information

Both Egypt in 1978 and Jordan in 1988 RENOUNCED their territorial claims towards Gaza and the West-bank. Whilst solely Israel (the Zionist's) did not renounce their BASELESS claim onto the West-Bank and Gaza, a claim that until TODAY is not recognized by the UN assembly.

I am not willing to engage into an endless and idiotic discussion with a Nazi, constantly forwarding Hitlers unfounded claim towards Sudetenland.

Topic over !!

 

[Shusha]

Again you post the well known and totally unsubstantiated Zionist claim, and spread misleading information

Both Egypt in 1978 and Jordan in 1988 RENOUNCED their territorial claims towards Gaza and the West-bank. Whilst solely Israel (the Zionist's) did not renounce their BASELESS claim onto the West-Bank and Gaza, a claim that until TODAY is not recognized by the UN assembly.

I am not willing to engage into an endless and idiotic discussion with a Nazi, constantly forwarding Hitlers unfounded claim towards Sudetenland.

Topic over !!

Jordan and Egypt never had a valid claim to the territory. Israel does.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whilst solely Israel (the Zionist's) did not renounce their BASELESS claim onto the West-Bank and Gaza,

Baseless claim over Samaria and Judea?

 

[MJB12741]

If radical Zionist's stay in power, and therefore Muslim radicals such as Hamas as well - off course.
And that is exactly onto what the radical Zionists are counting on. Incite as much hatred and suppression onto Palestinians as possible to ensure a retaliation by Muslim radicals.- see e.g. Oct. 7th. (a radical Zionist dream/expectation became true).

Without new Palestinian leadership there can be no peace with or without "radical Zionists." And let us not forget whose land it is long before any Muslims, let alone any Muslim Palestinians.

 

[MJB12741]

Not all Palestinians & supporters have a Palestinian mentality.

Memo From a Gazan to Campus Protests: You're Hurting the Palestinian Cause

As a Gazan and as a Palestinian, I want the protesters and the organizers of these protests to know that their hateful speech harms us.

www.newsweek.com

 

[MJB12741]

Growing hurtful actions to the Palestinian cause all over the world. The longer this hateful & violent behavior goes on the more the world will understand & side with Israel.