Israel does not target civilians?

[Phoenall]

...they look uniformed to me...

Correct...

Your Palestinians are, indeed, 'uniform'...

Always a good day to kill a few dozen or a few score of these slime-balls...

Of course, civilians are going to be hurt and killed, when the IDF flattens an area that these scumbags are haunting...

Purely collateral and unintentional...

Nothing deliberate about attacking war-assets and combatants, and thereby generating unintended civilian casualties...

Don't want the civilian casualties?

Move the war-assets...

Oh... and... move the Neanderthal Nazi wannabes like these panty-waists...

Well that would make the militants easy to spot so there's no reason or justification to destroy whole
areas populated by civillians then...unless of course, you are a barbarous, neandethal Zionist Israeli that enjoys killing women and children. Precision weapons? Why bother, let's just carpet bomb them, "kill them all, Allah will know his own"

Or you are not able to see the people to determine what they are wearing because you are too far away. The simple answer is to use the 50% of gaza that is uninhabited open land to engage in acts of war and war crimes

 

[Phoenall]

If it is essential that the will of the Palestinian people be broken in order for them to sue for peace, then that is the justification.

Point out to me please, when in history that policy has ever worked?

All bombardment does is kill people and strengthen the will of the survivors to resist further. If Zionist Isreal truely ever wanted peace, it would have torn the razor wire down and opened up the border crossings and used it's influence with the West to pump in investment funds from various sources to build up the Gazan economy. Well fed, comfortable people don't normally want to fire rockets anywhere and having much to lose, are just as likely to turn on their more militant groups themselves. Give them hope, not just keep on piling on more reasons for them to hate. Then Zionist Israel might get the peace they profess to want so badly...I won't hold my breath waiting.

Japan 1945 when the first nuclear weapons were used, or Germany between 1943 and 1945 when they where pulverised into submission and driven back by the allies.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

The League of Nations Covenant does not specifically promise the Arab Palestinians anything.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't have a problem with the Arab Palestinians applying their rights; just as long as they do not deny the very same rights to the authorize immigrants.

The Palestinians asserted their rights under law.

Why do you have a problem with that?

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the Palestinians, that constantly advocate for Jihad, death, and terrorist action under the color of freedom fighting and acting as a perpetual victim, have any room to deny the Israelis anything. Much of the adverse consequences, experienced by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, from the time that the Allied Powers place the territory under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration until the Mandate terminated, was their fault. This sums it up:

"The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and the assignment of 55% of the land to European colonists contravened the rights accruing to the inhabitants (natives) of the former Turkish territories as under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian rejected tutelage three times in the first two years of the Mandate; and several times after that. But don't try to imply that the Arab Palestinian was promised something it was not.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are confused.

The Palestinians never rejected British protection (the first meaning of tutelage is "protection" as in Latin). They rejected the British plan to cease protecting them by allowing a European colonization of their land.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations specifically promises the inhabitants of the former Turkish colonies that they would be granted sovereignty after a period of tutelage. The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians. The Jews were still in Europe. What do you not understand?


"and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. "

When did it become Palestinian land then under International law. What treaty granted the arab muslims sovereignty over the land owned and worked by the Jews. As far as treaties go they lost all rights to the land once the Ottomans were defeated and signed away the laqnd to the British and her allies.

The same international law that granted 22% of the land as the Jewish national home also granted 78% as the Palestinian national home

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

The today is pretty much the same as the law, set down by the Judgment. The Rome Statutes use the same language although expanded in some sense.

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.

The Nuremburg Charter might disagree with you. Zionist Israel will have to prove military necessity to avoid article 6b defining War Crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..."

(COMMENT)

Well, no matter who is being charged, the rule of "military necessity" applies. If it is essential that the will of the Palestinian people be broken in order for them to sue for peace, then that is the justification.

The justification comes directly from the Arab Higher Committee that stated in part:

"The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them."
"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense."
"The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child."
​

This is, in effect, where the Arabs of Palestine, openly defy the Resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. It is in effect, a Declaration of War.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, no matter who is being charged, the rule of "military necessity" applies. If it is essential that the will of the Palestinian people be broken in order for them to sue for peace, then that is the justification.​

Whoa, dude. I think you are talking about an illegal activity.

Could you justify that position?

Very easy as this is exactly what the muslims are doing today all over the world. So while you turn a blind eye to this you are just showing your Jew hatred and Nazism when you attack Israel as you are.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

We are straying too far off-topic.

1. There is no international dispute, the conflict is between an occupied population and the occupier.

2. Settlements in occupied Palestine are not civilian, they are military citadels which are utilized to facilitate further military conquest.

(COMMENT)

That depends on which set of threats and challenges you listen to from the Hostile Arab Palestinian side. But that is for another discussion.
The settlements are not military in nature. They are established under the Oslo Accords. Areas "A" --- "B" --- "C"....

You are very confused.

1. The Covenant promises the native people, in the case of Palestine the Arabs, the Mandatory's tutelage to enable the native people to assume full sovereignty from provisional sovereignty.

2. By signing the Covenant the party signing agreed that:

"The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
"Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government."

You cannot force feed the Arabs of Palestine. In late 1947 - early 1948, the Arab of Palestine again declined to participate in the establishment of a process leading to self-government.

Now the Hashemites did cooperate with the Allied Powers and the Mandatory. The were allocated 77% of the territory.

The solemn oath was carried-out.

The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant. The Zionists were not natives of Palestine. They were Europeans.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

(COMMENT)

The Arab of Palestine had no right to deny the Jewish immigration rights, or even the establishment of a state. The territory to which the Mandate applied (Palestine) was in the hands of the Allied Powers... not the Arab of Palestine.

There is absolutely nothing in the Covenant that precludes the Allied Powers from determining the future as stipulated in the 1924 Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The settlements are not military in nature. They are established under the Oslo Accords. Areas "A" --- "B" --- "C"....​

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make conces-
sions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken
its legal rights.

Similarly, the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot renounce their
rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This again is a safeguard.
It prevents the occupying power from exploiting the vulnerability of the
occupied territory by exerting undue pressure to undermine and weaken
the protection which the law affords.

ICRC service

And what does it say about reclaiming land stolen by force in 1949 by the Palestinian forces, because that is where the settlements are built on Jewish owned land

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

montelatici, et al,

Just show me where GA/RES/1514(XV) went into force as law?

"General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

(COMMENT)

You cannot, because it never did.

Most Respectfully,
R

Every article in Resolution 1514 is based on already existing international law.

It merely defines the application of existing law.

(COMMENT)

Paragraph 1:
The UN Charter does not mention subjugation or domination. The Charter does not mention "denial of human rights."

Paragraph 2:
The Charter does mention the "principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" in reference to the conditions of economic, social progress and development. But that has no relationship to sovereignty or decolonization.

Paragraph 3:
The "pretext" or "delay" was not mentioned in the Charter at all; even remotely to the concept of independence.

Paragraph 4:
This is a tricky "prohibition." This is a domestic issue. For instance, in the United States, there is no right to secede. (Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.”) It is what we call a “perpetual union."

Paragraph 5
This is a case where the UN is implying that it has the authority to intervene and demands a sovereignty to transfer powers.

Article 2(7) Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.​

Paragraph 6:
This has no requirement.

Paragraph 7:
This paragraph is a demand to observe; however, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is formally, as a declaration of the UNGA, is not binding on Member States. While it does have broad international acceptance of the UDHR, over the last 60 years has given its principles some legal status.

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has only occasionally referred to the UDHR, usually in dissenting or separate opinions. For example Judge Tanaka’s dissenting opinion in the South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa) (Second Phase) referred to the UDHR as ‘not binding in itself’, but nevertheless ‘evidence of the interpretation and application’ of the human rights clauses in the UN Charter (at 293; see also United Nations Charter, Interpretation of).
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The General Assembly,

Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence,

A ware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace,

Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,

Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,

Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace,

Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law,

Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith,

Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence,

Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,

Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

And to this end Declares that:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

Maybe this will help.

A recommendation dated 1960 has no relevance to the ongoing war in Palestine. If it did then it would apply to the colonialism of the arab muslims and the UN would act to evict them back to Syria and Egypt. But expect the more recent international laws to be used retrospectively and you could find them being used against yourself

 

[Phoenall]

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

When you end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm sorry, my friend, maintaining sovereignty over the airspace and sea, is not a withdrawal. How can you possibly say it is a withdrawal, when Palestinian's can't even go fishing in their own territorial waters, without getting shot at? Because of the security buffers, they can't even farm on their own land. And none of them can leave, without Israeli permission.

Even though troops have been removed, the occupation continues.

They could up until 2007 when the blockade was placed because of ongoing illegal rockets and terrorism. It must have worked because the hamas terrorists have been beaten every time by a lack of munitions.

 

[Rehmani]

...they look uniformed to me...

Correct...

Your Palestinians are, indeed, 'uniform'...

Always a good day to kill a few dozen or a few score of these slime-balls...

Of course, civilians are going to be hurt and killed, when the IDF flattens an area that these scumbags are haunting...

Purely collateral and unintentional...

Nothing deliberate about attacking war-assets and combatants, and thereby generating unintended civilian casualties...

Don't want the civilian casualties?

Move the war-assets...

Oh... and... move the Neanderthal Nazi wannabes like these panty-waists...

Wrong.... When Jews pushed Palestinian into camps to grab their country, then jews can enter in these camps as well to avoid civilian deaths. But mostly jew soldiers hired from overseas, and they don't want dual fight because they scare and they prefer to kill innocent civilian.

 

[Rehmani]

Hamas does not hide "behind the skirts of it woamen and children". It is Zionist propaganda. The cowards are the Israelis, that intentional bomb residential apartment buildings housing women and children or schools, killing women and children by the thousands. Israel intentionally bombs civilians no amount of projection and propaganda mongering can change the facts as presented by the UN or various NGOs and human rights organizations.

"Well, you know, despite the Israeli ambassador’s claim that Israel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for its extraordinary restraint and its extraordinary care to spare civilian lives, Human Rights Watch has seen from the ground, based on our investigations in Gaza, that that’s anything but the case. And no matter how many times the Israeli military spokesmen scream, "Human shields! Human shields!" most of the people being killed in Gaza are being killed because Israel is paying insufficient care to saving civilian lives. There’s been case after case in which Israel has used the wrong weaponry or has shot at people with many civilians around. And these, in our view, are war crimes."

Kenneth Roth

Former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Executive Director of HRW. Kenneth Roth is Jewish, by the way.

Hamas usage of human shields is a well established and proven fact. Their cowardice knows no bounds.

And you know the facts but don't have enough courage to accept the facts as it all jews nature.

The facts are that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields. Their fighters do not wear uniforms for this very purpose. They're savages and cowards. But then again, that's what all Islamists are.

Not quite the spit and polish of the Brigade of Guards, or the USMC perhaps, but they look uniformed to me...

Thats a wonderful Islamic terrorist fashion show (for Islamic terrorist cowards), but such silly cutting and pasting serves only to reinforce a lot of negative stereotypes about you Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers.

Then why not Israel army enter into these camps and catch freedom fighter instead kill innocent civilian because jew army don't want dual fight because they scare.

 

[Rehmani]

The question at-hand is whether Israel INTENTIONALLY TARGETS civilians, not whether they're killing them.

When Hamas embeds its war-assets amongst its civilian population, hiding behind the skirts of its women and children like cowards, casualties are inevitable.

Hamas does not hide "behind the skirts of it woamen and children". It is Zionist propaganda. The cowards are the Israelis, that intentional bomb residential apartment buildings housing women and children or schools, killing women and children by the thousands. Israel intentionally bombs civilians no amount of projection and propaganda mongering can change the facts as presented by the UN or various NGOs and human rights organizations.

"Well, you know, despite the Israeli ambassador’s claim that Israel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for its extraordinary restraint and its extraordinary care to spare civilian lives, Human Rights Watch has seen from the ground, based on our investigations in Gaza, that that’s anything but the case. And no matter how many times the Israeli military spokesmen scream, "Human shields! Human shields!" most of the people being killed in Gaza are being killed because Israel is paying insufficient care to saving civilian lives. There’s been case after case in which Israel has used the wrong weaponry or has shot at people with many civilians around. And these, in our view, are war crimes."

Kenneth Roth

Former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Executive Director of HRW. Kenneth Roth is Jewish, by the way.

Hamas usage of human shields is a well established and proven fact. Their cowardice knows no bounds.

And you know the facts but don't have enough courage to accept the facts as it all jews nature.

The facts are that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields. Their fighters do not wear uniforms for this very purpose. They're savages and cowards. But then again, that's what all Islamists are.

Not quite the spit and polish of the Brigade of Guards, or the USMC perhaps, but they look uniformed to me...

But they can be in Lebanon or in Jordon not in Gaza. Still sound like empty hand as compare to modern jews army. To me if Israelis are not terrorist then they should enter in Gaza and the freedom fighter instead kill civilian cowardly. But hired army from overseas scared to fight face to face. And preferred to kill innocent civilian.

 

[Rehmani]

The question at-hand is whether Israel INTENTIONALLY TARGETS civilians, not whether they're killing them.

When Hamas embeds its war-assets amongst its civilian population, hiding behind the skirts of its women and children like cowards, casualties are inevitable.

Hamas does not hide "behind the skirts of it woamen and children". It is Zionist propaganda. The cowards are the Israelis, that intentional bomb residential apartment buildings housing women and children or schools, killing women and children by the thousands. Israel intentionally bombs civilians no amount of projection and propaganda mongering can change the facts as presented by the UN or various NGOs and human rights organizations.

"Well, you know, despite the Israeli ambassador’s claim that Israel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for its extraordinary restraint and its extraordinary care to spare civilian lives, Human Rights Watch has seen from the ground, based on our investigations in Gaza, that that’s anything but the case. And no matter how many times the Israeli military spokesmen scream, "Human shields! Human shields!" most of the people being killed in Gaza are being killed because Israel is paying insufficient care to saving civilian lives. There’s been case after case in which Israel has used the wrong weaponry or has shot at people with many civilians around. And these, in our view, are war crimes."

Kenneth Roth

Former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Executive Director of HRW. Kenneth Roth is Jewish, by the way.

Hamas usage of human shields is a well established and proven fact. Their cowardice knows no bounds.

And you know the facts but don't have enough courage to accept the facts as it all jews nature.

The facts are that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields. Their fighters do not wear uniforms for this very purpose. They're savages and cowards. But then again, that's what all Islamists are.

Not quite the spit and polish of the Brigade of Guards, or the USMC perhaps, but they look uniformed to me...

But they can be in Lebanon or in Jordon not in Gaza. Still sound like empty hand as compare to modern jews army. To me if Israelis are not terrorist then they should enter in Gaza and the freedom fighter instead kill civilian cowardly. But hired army from overseas scared to fight face to face. And preferred to kill innocent civilian.

 

[Kondor3]

...they look uniformed to me...

Correct...

Your Palestinians are, indeed, 'uniform'...

Always a good day to kill a few dozen or a few score of these slime-balls...

Of course, civilians are going to be hurt and killed, when the IDF flattens an area that these scumbags are haunting...

Purely collateral and unintentional...

Nothing deliberate about attacking war-assets and combatants, and thereby generating unintended civilian casualties...

Don't want the civilian casualties?

Move the war-assets...

Oh... and... move the Neanderthal Nazi wannabes like these panty-waists...

Wrong.... When Jews pushed Palestinian into camps to grab their country, then jews can enter in these camps as well to avoid civilian deaths. But mostly jew soldiers hired from overseas, and they don't want dual fight because they scare and they prefer to kill innocent civilian.

1. ask for a refund (unless, of course, it was free at your local madrassa), for your English-as-a-Second-Language class - it did not succeed.

2. even through the formidable language barrier, you manifest as clinically paranoid.

I do not believe you to be sane.

Your simple-minded Automatic Gainsay on the subject does nothing to advance the conversation.

When your mind becomes more calm, perhaps you can do some research, and serve up prima facie evidence that the State of Israel routinely, and as matter of policy and regular practice, and on a substantive scale, target civilians, instead of legitimate military targets.

Consult your Arabic-English translation dictionary to help you with the Big Words.

 

[Rehmani]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And just where does it say that the Arab has the right of insurrection or to steal the sovereignty of the territory of another.

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

Invaders are invader and they have no right to own some one else country and invaders have to leave.

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping Israeli propaganda.

You know that the rights of the people do not require a state.

(COMMENT)

The treaty did not surrender the land to the Arab, it surrendered the land to the Allied Powers.

The argument that the right of the Jewish Immigrants is just as valid; even more so since they successfully defended their independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians stole someone else's territory.

Link?

YES look at the terms and conditions of the LoN charter and the LoN mandate for Palestine. The arab muslims received 78% of Palestine and the Jews 22%. So why do the arab muslims want what was never theirs to begin with.

First then why jew want to grab 78% instead stuck in Telaviv. Second Palestinian are indigenous and they ruled holy land for 900 years without break and during this 900 years rule they accommodate jews too others wise jews were not allowed in holy land.

 

[Rehmani]

...Then why not, jews stuck around Telaviv in Israel. Why jews invade home land of Palestinian.

Off topic.

But it does not make any difference... the Jews own the place now... time for your people to leave.

Off topic.

Israel is killing civilian. Are you blind.

The question at-hand is whether Israel INTENTIONALLY TARGETS civilians, not whether they're killing them.

When Hamas embeds its war-assets amongst its civilian population, hiding behind the skirts of its women and children like cowards, casualties are inevitable.

But the facts are that Israelis are killing civilian brutally and cowardly.

Can you provide a link that Israelis target civilians intentionally. But we do know that's what Islamist animals do in the name of Allah.

Very simple. As we all know that jews animal invade Palestine by force with help of modern war machine and pushed palestinian into camps. And now they don't want enter in camps because jew know that in camp they have to fight face to face they might get killed, this is one reason and second reason jew animal want to kill as many as civilian so no one left behind to claim over holy land means genocide. Dumb why don't you understand you people means jews are mass murderer terrorist.

 

[Rehmani]

Off topic.

Israel is killing civilian. Are you blind.

The question at-hand is whether Israel INTENTIONALLY TARGETS civilians, not whether they're killing them.

When Hamas embeds its war-assets amongst its civilian population, hiding behind the skirts of its women and children like cowards, casualties are inevitable.

Hamas does not hide "behind the skirts of it woamen and children". It is Zionist propaganda. The cowards are the Israelis, that intentional bomb residential apartment buildings housing women and children or schools, killing women and children by the thousands. Israel intentionally bombs civilians no amount of projection and propaganda mongering can change the facts as presented by the UN or various NGOs and human rights organizations.

"Well, you know, despite the Israeli ambassador’s claim that Israel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for its extraordinary restraint and its extraordinary care to spare civilian lives, Human Rights Watch has seen from the ground, based on our investigations in Gaza, that that’s anything but the case. And no matter how many times the Israeli military spokesmen scream, "Human shields! Human shields!" most of the people being killed in Gaza are being killed because Israel is paying insufficient care to saving civilian lives. There’s been case after case in which Israel has used the wrong weaponry or has shot at people with many civilians around. And these, in our view, are war crimes."

Kenneth Roth

Former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Executive Director of HRW. Kenneth Roth is Jewish, by the way.

Hamas usage of human shields is a well established and proven fact. Their cowardice knows no bounds.

And you know the facts but don't have enough courage to accept the facts as it all jews nature.

The facts are that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields. Their fighters do not wear uniforms for this very purpose. They're savages and cowards. But then again, that's what all Islamists are.

Israel don't want to give them sovereign rights because are paranoid and jew know that then they will be in uniform with modern machine. Paranoid jew don't want to take any risk but risk becoming greater for jew as time is passing.

 

[Rehmani]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And just where does it say that the Arab has the right of insurrection or to steal the sovereignty of the territory of another.

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

Invaders are invader and they have no right to own some one else country and invaders have to leave.

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping Israeli propaganda.

You know that the rights of the people do not require a state.

(COMMENT)

The treaty did not surrender the land to the Arab, it surrendered the land to the Allied Powers.

The argument that the right of the Jewish Immigrants is just as valid; even more so since they successfully defended their independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians stole someone else's territory.

Link?

Means Israelis thieves are making noise after stealing land of palestine.

 

[Rehmani]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And just where does it say that the Arab has the right of insurrection or to steal the sovereignty of the territory of another.

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

Invaders are invader and they have no right to own some one else country and invaders have to leave.

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping Israeli propaganda.

You know that the rights of the people do not require a state.

(COMMENT)

The treaty did not surrender the land to the Arab, it surrendered the land to the Allied Powers.

The argument that the right of the Jewish Immigrants is just as valid; even more so since they successfully defended their independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Defend their illegal sovereignty with the help of super powers and their modern war machine. Means Jew thieves are making noise that the indigenous palestinian stealing their own land from the jew thieves.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

Invaders are invader and they have no right to own some one else country and invaders have to leave.

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping Israeli propaganda.

You know that the rights of the people do not require a state.

Did those rights exist in 1917, 1923, 1948 or 1967, Or are they a more recent thing that are not yet international law ?

Look jew, you can not change many millennium old indigenous palestinian rights because of falls propaganda.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

Invaders are invader and they have no right to own some one else country and invaders have to leave.

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine, to both questions.

So where are the international treaties giving the land to the arab muslims to create a Palestinian state.

When did this state come into existence as the Ottomans refused it as did the LoN.

Jew, First it is fact that jew create israel by killing pushing palestinian in to camps by using war powers and their modern war machine and still jew are killing innocent palestinian. And whole world know the tricky and bloody creation of Israel over the sovereign land of Palestine.

 

[Rehmani]

...Then why not, jews stuck around Telaviv in Israel. Why jews invade home land of Palestinian.

Off topic.

But it does not make any difference... the Jews own the place now... time for your people to leave.

Off topic.

Israel is killing civilian. Are you blind.

The question at-hand is whether Israel INTENTIONALLY TARGETS civilians, not whether they're killing them.

When Hamas embeds its war-assets amongst its civilian population, hiding behind the skirts of its women and children like cowards, casualties are inevitable.

But the facts are that Israelis are killing civilian brutally and cowardly.

Then provide the evidence and you will see Israel attacked by the rest of the world. Refuse and you will be seen as just another LYING propagandist.
FACT hamas breaches the Geneva conventions by placing rocket launchers in civilian areas
FACT hamas does this so that civilians will be killed
FACT Israel gives warning of where they will attack and hamas stops the citizens from leaving their homes
FACT Under international law hamas are the ones murdering the civilians and they should be dealt with by the ICC/ICJ

Look jew you are lying again.