Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel

[MartyNYC]

Jews predate Islam by thousands of years.

Illegal, of course.

Entirely legal.

 

[Failzero]

Illegal, of course.

War has its perks

 

[USAF 2023]

Good lord. The audacity of it. How dare they elect a Muslim to office in America. Of course they can’t possibly be qualified!

The problem is neither supports eliminating Israel. They support a one state solution. Something Some pro-Israeli’s have been supporting as well. One supports the right of return in a very eloquent manner that echos the same feelings of “right of return” that Jews have toward the land of their ancestors. Seems the Islamophobia bias is showing.

The so called diatribe was nothing more then answering a specific question from the interviewer. The OP took a tiny fragment of the interview out of a richer context, the entire interview is here:

Rashida Tlaib on Democratic Socialism and Why She Supports the Palestinian Right of Return

She doesn't support eliminating Israel? What do you call a One State Solution with a overwhelming Palestinian majority? The " One State Solution" is DOA


Palestinians: Are you willing to share the land with the Jews? - YouTube


PA officials: Jews have 'no right to pray' at Western Wall | The Times of Israel


PA: Jews have no connection to Western Wall | PMW Analysis

Please tell us why ONLY Muslims can pray on Temple Mount
The above is just for starters. What's to prevent them from doing what Jordan did pre 67??

 

[MartyNYC]

Irrelevant.

Prominent Jerusalem Muslim dignitary Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi, 1899: “Who can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine? Good Lord, historically it is really their country.”

 

[MartyNYC]

Illegal, of course.

Entirely legal.

“International Law In The Middle East”

Professor Stephen Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice

“A recurrent theme of the Middle East debate is “no weight to conquest.” President Johnson sounded that theme in 1968 and, more recently, Secretary of State Rogers maintained that any changes in the 1949 armistice lines between the Arab States and Israel “should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security.

This compelling conclusion Is open to question on two counts: it fails to distinguish, first, between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, and, second, between the taking of territory which the prior holder held lawfully and that which it held unlawfully.

As a general principle of international law and life, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is, as the Security Council has pertinent ly put it, “inadmissible”—provided that means unlawful conquest, unlawful war. But if the qualification “unlawful” is omitted, then the principle is turned from an important safe guard into an aggressor's warrant. For if force can never be used to bring about lawful territorial change, then, once a territory has been taken by the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of that position is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This can hardly be what the U.N. Charter means.

Consider the situation in the Middle East. The facts of the “Six Day War” demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. She responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, and its mass ing of troops in Sinai coupled with its ejection of UNEF. Sub sequently, despite intense ef forts led in person by the Premier of the U.S.S.R., the hospitable organs of the United Nations decisively defeated res olutions condemning Israel as an aggressor.

In the critical days of 1948, Israel also acted in lawful self defense. Israel was proclaimed an independent state within the boundaries allotted to her by the General Assembly's par tition resolution. The Arabs re jected that resolution.

But that was no warrant for the invasion of Palestine by Arab countries, whether of the territory allotted to Israel, to the stillborn Arab State, or to the projected, internationalized city of Jerusalem. Israeli de fensive measures were justified, however, within and, as neces sary, outside the partition boundaries.

It follows that the Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip, and the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and old Jerusalem, could not vest in Egypt and Jordan lawful, in definite control, whether as occupying power or sovereign. For, as a cardinal principle of international law provides—the general principle of which “no weight to conquest” is a par ticular application—no legal right may spring from a wrong.

What follows? First, since Jordanian and Egyptian title in former Palestinian territory is bad, and Israeli title, founded in defensive action, is better, modifications of the 1949 armi stice lines, which all parties agree do not establish definitive boundaries, are lawful. This is so even if they are not “insub stantial.”

Second, as regards occupied territory bordering Palestine, it follows not that no weight shall be given to conquest, but that such weight shall be given to defensive action as is rea sonably required to insure that that territory will not again be used for aggressive purposes against Israel, e.g., establish ment of demilitarized zones.

This analysis conforms not only with the terms of the U.N. Charter but with subsequent law and practice.

Legality of a Treaty

As to practice, the Republic of Korea, and the U.N. itself, have given considerable weight to conquest in Korea, to the extent of that substantial terri tory north of the 38th parallel from which the aggressor was driven and remains excluded.

As to legal doctrine, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that “A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations”—a provi sion which clearly permits the conclusion of a valid treaty where force has been applied, as in self‐defense, in accord ance with the Charter. It is pre cisely such a treaty that Israel affirms it seeks.”

 

[USAF 2023]

Entirely legal.

“International Law In The Middle East”

Professor Stephen Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice

“A recurrent theme of the Middle East debate is “no weight to conquest.” President Johnson sounded that theme in 1968 and, more recently, Secretary of State Rogers maintained that any changes in the 1949 armistice lines between the Arab States and Israel “should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security.

This compelling conclusion Is open to question on two counts: it fails to distinguish, first, between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, and, second, between the taking of territory which the prior holder held lawfully and that which it held unlawfully.

As a general principle of international law and life, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is, as the Security Council has pertinent ly put it, “inadmissible”—provided that means unlawful conquest, unlawful war. But if the qualification “unlawful” is omitted, then the principle is turned from an important safe guard into an aggressor's warrant. For if force can never be used to bring about lawful territorial change, then, once a territory has been taken by the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of that position is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This can hardly be what the U.N. Charter means.

Consider the situation in the Middle East. The facts of the “Six Day War” demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. She responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, and its mass ing of troops in Sinai coupled with its ejection of UNEF. Sub sequently, despite intense ef forts led in person by the Premier of the U.S.S.R., the hospitable organs of the United Nations decisively defeated res olutions condemning Israel as an aggressor.

In the critical days of 1948, Israel also acted in lawful self defense. Israel was proclaimed an independent state within the boundaries allotted to her by the General Assembly's par tition resolution. The Arabs re jected that resolution.

But that was no warrant for the invasion of Palestine by Arab countries, whether of the territory allotted to Israel, to the stillborn Arab State, or to the projected, internationalized city of Jerusalem. Israeli de fensive measures were justified, however, within and, as neces sary, outside the partition boundaries.

It follows that the Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip, and the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and old Jerusalem, could not vest in Egypt and Jordan lawful, in definite control, whether as occupying power or sovereign. For, as a cardinal principle of international law provides—the general principle of which “no weight to conquest” is a par ticular application—no legal right may spring from a wrong.

What follows? First, since Jordanian and Egyptian title in former Palestinian territory is bad, and Israeli title, founded in defensive action, is better, modifications of the 1949 armi stice lines, which all parties agree do not establish definitive boundaries, are lawful. This is so even if they are not “insub stantial.”

Second, as regards occupied territory bordering Palestine, it follows not that no weight shall be given to conquest, but that such weight shall be given to defensive action as is rea sonably required to insure that that territory will not again be used for aggressive purposes against Israel, e.g., establish ment of demilitarized zones.

This analysis conforms not only with the terms of the U.N. Charter but with subsequent law and practice.

Legality of a Treaty

As to practice, the Republic of Korea, and the U.N. itself, have given considerable weight to conquest in Korea, to the extent of that substantial terri tory north of the 38th parallel from which the aggressor was driven and remains excluded.

As to legal doctrine, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that “A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations”—a provi sion which clearly permits the conclusion of a valid treaty where force has been applied, as in self‐defense, in accord ance with the Charter. It is pre cisely such a treaty that Israel affirms it seeks.”


View attachment 783323View attachment 783324

Look , you have to consider the source. Posted a You tube Video; Are you willing to share the land with the Jews” I didn’t name it . That’s the question that was asked The responses were Negative . His response was; it’s not the land; it’s Palestine. My response; Deflection. No matter what you call it my questions remain Of course there was no response.

 

[MartyNYC]

Look , you have to consider the source. Posted a You tube Video; Are you willing to share the land with the Jews” I didn’t name it . That’s the question that was asked The responses were Negative . His response was; it’s not the land; it’s Palestine. My response; Deflection. No matter what you call it my questions remain Of course there was no response.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Entirely legal.

“International Law In The Middle East”

Professor Stephen Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice

“A recurrent theme of the Middle East debate is “no weight to conquest.” President Johnson sounded that theme in 1968 and, more recently, Secretary of State Rogers maintained that any changes in the 1949 armistice lines between the Arab States and Israel “should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security.

This compelling conclusion Is open to question on two counts: it fails to distinguish, first, between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, and, second, between the taking of territory which the prior holder held lawfully and that which it held unlawfully.

As a general principle of international law and life, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is, as the Security Council has pertinent ly put it, “inadmissible”—provided that means unlawful conquest, unlawful war. But if the qualification “unlawful” is omitted, then the principle is turned from an important safe guard into an aggressor's warrant. For if force can never be used to bring about lawful territorial change, then, once a territory has been taken by the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of that position is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This can hardly be what the U.N. Charter means.

Consider the situation in the Middle East. The facts of the “Six Day War” demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. She responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, and its mass ing of troops in Sinai coupled with its ejection of UNEF. Sub sequently, despite intense ef forts led in person by the Premier of the U.S.S.R., the hospitable organs of the United Nations decisively defeated res olutions condemning Israel as an aggressor.

In the critical days of 1948, Israel also acted in lawful self defense. Israel was proclaimed an independent state within the boundaries allotted to her by the General Assembly's par tition resolution. The Arabs re jected that resolution.

But that was no warrant for the invasion of Palestine by Arab countries, whether of the territory allotted to Israel, to the stillborn Arab State, or to the projected, internationalized city of Jerusalem. Israeli de fensive measures were justified, however, within and, as neces sary, outside the partition boundaries.

It follows that the Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip, and the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and old Jerusalem, could not vest in Egypt and Jordan lawful, in definite control, whether as occupying power or sovereign. For, as a cardinal principle of international law provides—the general principle of which “no weight to conquest” is a par ticular application—no legal right may spring from a wrong.

What follows? First, since Jordanian and Egyptian title in former Palestinian territory is bad, and Israeli title, founded in defensive action, is better, modifications of the 1949 armi stice lines, which all parties agree do not establish definitive boundaries, are lawful. This is so even if they are not “insub stantial.”

Second, as regards occupied territory bordering Palestine, it follows not that no weight shall be given to conquest, but that such weight shall be given to defensive action as is rea sonably required to insure that that territory will not again be used for aggressive purposes against Israel, e.g., establish ment of demilitarized zones.

This analysis conforms not only with the terms of the U.N. Charter but with subsequent law and practice.

Legality of a Treaty

As to practice, the Republic of Korea, and the U.N. itself, have given considerable weight to conquest in Korea, to the extent of that substantial terri tory north of the 38th parallel from which the aggressor was driven and remains excluded.

As to legal doctrine, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that “A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations”—a provi sion which clearly permits the conclusion of a valid treaty where force has been applied, as in self‐defense, in accord ance with the Charter. It is pre cisely such a treaty that Israel affirms it seeks.”


View attachment 783323View attachment 783324

Your post confirms my position not yours.

 

[MartyNYC]

Your post confirms my position not yours.

Israel is legally entitled to the territory.

“What follows? First, since Jordanian and Egyptian title in former Palestinian territory is bad, and Israeli title, founded in defensive action, is better, modifications of the 1949 armi stice lines, which all parties agree do not establish definitive boundaries, are lawful. This is so even if they are not “insub stantial.”

Second, as regards occupied territory bordering Palestine, it follows not that no weight shall be given to conquest, but that such weight shall be given to defensive action as is rea sonably required to insure that that territory will not again be used for aggressive purposes against Israel, e.g., establish ment of demilitarized zones.”

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel is legally entitled to the territory.

“What follows? First, since Jordanian and Egyptian title in former Palestinian territory is bad, and Israeli title, founded in defensive action, is better, modifications of the 1949 armi stice lines, which all parties agree do not establish definitive boundaries, are lawful. This is so even if they are not “insub stantial.”

Second, as regards occupied territory bordering Palestine, it follows not that no weight shall be given to conquest, but that such weight shall be given to defensive action as is rea sonably required to insure that that territory will not again be used for aggressive purposes against Israel, e.g., establish ment of demilitarized zones.”

Just one thing about conquest.

In 1948 five Arab countries entered Palestine. History shows that they did not lose the 1948 war. Israel's propaganda says they did. However;
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just one thing about conquest.

In 1948 five Arab countries entered Palestine. History shows that they did not lose the 1948 war. Israel's propaganda says they did. However;
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

History shows that they did not lose the 1948 war.

When the Arab armies left, was that because they won?
Was Israel larger after they left than before they arrived?

 

[USAF 2023]

Just one thing about conquest.

In 1948 five Arab countries entered Palestine. History shows that they did not lose the 1948 war. Israel's propaganda says they did. However;
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

They lost their goal which was Israel’s destruction. Any more questions?

 

[P F Tinmore]

They lost their goal which was Israel’s destruction. Any more questions?

Nice duck They did not lose the war.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nice duck They did not lose the war.

They sure didn't win the war.

 

[USAF 2023]

Nice duck They did not lose the war.

Nice duck They did not lose the war.

Otherwise known as Israel’s War of Independence, or, “the nakbah” or disaster to the Arab world because a Jewish state was established, the war was fought between the newly established Jewish state of Israel opposed by Palestinian irregulars, and armies from five Arab states. Official beginning of the war is usually given as May 14, 1948, the date Israel declared itself an independent Jewish state, but the war’s first of four phases began in November 1947. Lasting for two years, the war ended with armistice agreements signed in 1949 between Israel and four Arab states. Brokered by the United Nations, these agreements did not result in the Arab world’s diplomatic recognition of Israel. Instead a ‘technical’ state of war characterized Arab-Israeli relations until 1979, when the Egypt-Israeli Peace Treaty was signed.

Nice duck; they did lose the War


Palestinians: Are you willing to share the land with the Jews? - YouTube
Notice you refuse to answer; To quote you; Nice Duck

 

[MartyNYC]

Nice duck They did not lose the war.

Fouad Ajami: “The UN vote in 1947 was Israel’s title to statehood. Palestinians and Arab powers chose the path of war. Their choice was calamitous. Palestine became a great Arab shame. Few Arabs were willing to tell the story truthfully, to face its harsh verdict”

The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State

 

[Failzero]

Just one thing about conquest.

In 1948 five Arab countries entered Palestine. History shows that they did not lose the 1948 war. Israel's propaganda says they did. However;
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

Control over Gaza , Control over Jerusalem Control over the Golan , Control over the Coast , Control over the West Bank

 

[P F Tinmore]

Control over Gaza , Control over Jerusalem Control over the Golan , Control over the Coast , Control over the West Bank

Nice duck. Did not answer any of the questions.

 

[Failzero]

Nice duck. Did not answer any of the questions.

Those examples are what they lost .

 

[protectionist]

So if the Chinese developed a super tech weapon, and took over the USA, you would be OK with that ?

War has its perks