Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm sorry, this thread is no longer fun any more.Which explains why, since 1967, Israel has given up territory that is greater than the size of Israel’s current borders.
[ Satire ]
By Stan Dartkafuhl, legal scholar
The position of the international community on the subject of the 1949 armistice lines between Israel and Jordan, and between Israel and Egypt, has long been clear: Israeli control of any territories beyond those lines constitutes an illegal occupation, and Israel's permanent border must follow the lines on the armistice map that determined boundaries until the Six-Day War of 1967. Any Israeli activity beyond that frontier violates international law. When Palestinians do it in the other direction, however, as with the Great Return March in Gaza, that's fine.
Under normal circumstances international law does not distinguish between an armed invasion or one that features no weapons; an organized crossing of an internationally recognized border without the consent of the government on the other side of that border constitutes a bona fide invasion. That much was established regarding Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara. Masses of unarmed Moroccans simply marched across the border, set up settlements, and there we stand today, with the official position of international legal experts characterizing the influx of Moroccans as an invasion, the repulsion of which justified the use of lethal force. Sovereignty has value in international law.
But not for Israel, which is barred from preventing thousands of Gazans from destroying the border fence and entering pre-1967 Israel. In international law as practiced in modern times, Jewish sovereignty is not like other sovereignty. Other sovereign entities are entitled to protect their sovereignty, by lethal force if necessary, under all circumstances; the Jewish State, on the other hand, must bow to the will of genocidal hordes who have been taught from birth that Jews are inherently evil and must be destroyed. It's the law.
Others may quibble about the current status of those lines given the possibility of a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians that might involve adjustment of the border, but the principle remains operative regardless of the final boundaries under any agreement. Case in point: the armistice was signed with Jordan, which has since renounced any claims to territory west of the Jordan River - and Israeli agreements with the Palestinians at Oslo only grant Palestinians self-rule in specific population centers of that territory. Nevertheless, the international community automatically sees Israeli control of the balance of the territory as a violation, because Jews. You know how it is.
One day a case might come before the World Court or the International Criminal Court that will formalize this principle and enshrine it in case law, but until then, it will have to be maintained through repetition: only Israeli actions have legal significance.
The 1967 Lines Are Sacrosanct Unless Palestinians Violate Them (PreOccupied Territory) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
Not really. In Palestine they are constitutionally protected political parties.
There is no legal requirement for occupied people to be non violent. Violence might not be the best tactic, but no Palestinians are going to The Hague.While Mandela and his ANC party did employ violence in the struggle against South African apartheid, it is an insult to both Gandhi and Martin Luther King that Hamas can make any comparison between itself and the advocates of real non-violence.
According to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, King’s notion of non-violence had six key principles, including:
Does this really sound like Hamas’s definition of non-violent protest?
- One can resist evil without resorting to violence;
- Non-violence seeks to win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent, not to humiliate him;
- Those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive;
- The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of “understanding,” or “redeeming good will for all men.”
This is the reality of the protests at the Gaza border:
Why is it non-violent when Palestinians throw stones and firebombs yet anyone else would be arrested and prosecuted for doing the same thing in another country? Is it the bigotry of low expectations that judges Palestinians by such low standards of what constitutes non-violent activities?
(full article online)
AP Exposes Hamas Definition of 'Non-Violence' | HonestReporting
There is no legal requirement for occupied people to be non violent. Violence might not be the best tactic, but no Palestinians are going to The Hague.While Mandela and his ANC party did employ violence in the struggle against South African apartheid, it is an insult to both Gandhi and Martin Luther King that Hamas can make any comparison between itself and the advocates of real non-violence.
According to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, King’s notion of non-violence had six key principles, including:
Does this really sound like Hamas’s definition of non-violent protest?
- One can resist evil without resorting to violence;
- Non-violence seeks to win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent, not to humiliate him;
- Those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive;
- The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of “understanding,” or “redeeming good will for all men.”
This is the reality of the protests at the Gaza border:
Why is it non-violent when Palestinians throw stones and firebombs yet anyone else would be arrested and prosecuted for doing the same thing in another country? Is it the bigotry of low expectations that judges Palestinians by such low standards of what constitutes non-violent activities?
(full article online)
AP Exposes Hamas Definition of 'Non-Violence' | HonestReporting
Not really. In Palestine they are constitutionally protected political parties.
They are only "terror groups" to the foreign, third grade, name callers.