The Hamas Charter

[MartyNYC]

The British didn't own Palestine.

From 1920

Zionist Aspirations in Palestine - 20.07

Atlantic Unbound: The Atlantic Monthly Magazine Online

www.theatlantic.com

Britain named the area Palestine. English word.

 

[surada]

Britain named the area Palestine. English word.

View attachment 736716

King Abdullah bin Al-Hussein (1882-1951)

 

[MartyNYC]

Human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories

Stay up to date on the state of human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories with the latest research, campaigns and education material from Amnesty International.

www.amnesty.org

Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader, US House of Representatives: Amnesty International has grossly mischaracterized Israel, its democratic values, and its historical connection to the Jewish people

 

[MartyNYC]

King Abdullah bin Al-Hussein (1882-1951)

Abdullah al-Hadlaq, writer, Al-Watan, Kuwait: “When the state of Israel was established in 1948 there was no state called palestine. Where did we get that name which we have been defending? It didn’t exist.” Kuwaiti Writer Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: Israel Is a Legitimate State, Not an Occupier; There Was No Palestine; I Support Israel-Gulf-U.S. Alliance to Annihilate Hizbullah

 

[MartyNYC]

King Abdullah bin Al-Hussein (1882-1951)

There never has been a historic nation of palestine, land of palestine, language of palestine, god of palestine. That all applies to Israel and Jews.

Historian James Parkes: “Through the centuries, the region called Palestine became a national home for the Jews, and for no other definable people.”

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh yes they go out of their way alright.

To snipe school children.

That are used as human shields as Hamas terrorist shoot at them and throw grenades.

To run people over with bulldozers.

Before they can fire the Russian made rocket launchers at school buses

To use white phosphorous.

When the Muslim terrorists are only trying to kill them. Jews had a duty to die, Allahu Akbar.

They are soooo caring and compassionate.

I hope that shithole apartheid state gets nuked into the center of the Earth.

Of course, you are a Muslim Supremacist - not one grain of sand which is not ruled by the Caliphate.

 

[Billo_Really]

LOL

What idiocy.

Tell you what, you get Kim over in North Korea to quit and give the land back to the legitimate government in the south, then we'll talk.

Oh, and Kosovo that Albania took by force from Serbia.

Dude, you're just so full of shit.

Well, according to your argument, we should also give Poland back to Germany!

 

[Billo_Really]

Of all those places, only the Golan Heights are occupied. They are only occupied because the Syrians spent decades firing artillery from them at Israeli CIVILIAN kibbutzim. The West Bank and Gaza were both part of the original territory granted to the Jews when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved. The Arabs got over eighty percent of the territory. The West Bank and Gaza were both seized by Arab armies during the 1947 war as was East Jerusalem. Jerusalem was supposed to be a neutral city with free access to all, instead it was carved up like Berlin into zones of occupation by the cease fire agreement that was based upon what territory each side controlled when the armistice went into effect.

According to international law, all 4 of those territories are under occupation. If Gaza is not occupied, then why can't a humanitarian vessel carry aid cannot sail in without being stopped by the IDF?

 

[MartyNYC]

According to international law, all 4 of those territories are under occupation. If Gaza is not occupied, then why can't a humanitarian vessel carry aid cannot sail in without being stopped by the IDF?

According to international law, all 4 of those territories are under occupation. If Gaza is not occupied, then why can't a humanitarian vessel carry aid cannot sail in without being stopped by the IDF?

Gaza is in a state of war with Israel.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, according to your argument, we should also give Poland back to Germany!

"we" didn't take Poland from Germany.

Poland is a sovereign nation.

The issue is the stupidity of the Muslim Supremacist bullshit you spout.

 

[Billo_Really]

"we" didn't take Poland from Germany.

Poland is a sovereign nation.

The issue is the stupidity of the Muslim Supremacist bullshit you spout.

I am o

"we" didn't take Poland from Germany.

Poland is a sovereign nation.

The issue is the stupidity of the Muslim Supremacist bullshit you spout.

The only thing I am "spouting", is international law. Conquer by Conquest has been outlawed since the end of WWII. And that includes 1967. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on, legally.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am o

The only thing I am "spouting", is international law. Conquer by Conquest has been outlawed since the end of WWII. And that includes 1967. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on, legally.

That world government you pray to and $20 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Notice it was your Muslim Supremacist buddies who attempted to take land by conquest - they simply failed.

 

[MartyNYC]

I am o

The only thing I am "spouting", is international law. Conquer by Conquest has been outlawed since the end of WWII. And that includes 1967. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on, legally.

You‘re an authority in international law posting on US Messageboard?

Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (“What Weight to Conquest?”)

“As a general principle of international law, as that law has been reformed since the League, particularly by the Charter, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. But that principle must be read in particular cases together with other general principles, among them the still more general principle of which it is an application, namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. So read, the distinctions between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, between the taking of territory legally held and the taking of territory illegally held, become no less vital and correct than the central principle itself.”

"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's [The state formed by the union of the republics of Egypt and Syria in 1958] use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.

"It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.

"The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."

a) A state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defence may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defence.

b) As a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that state may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defence.

c) Where the prior holder of the territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

That are used as human shields as Hamas terrorist shoot at them and throw grenades.


Before they can fire the Russian made rocket launchers at school buses



When the Muslim terrorists are only trying to kill them. Jews had a duty to die, Allahu Akbar.



Of course, you are a Muslim Supremacist - not one grain of sand which is not ruled by the Caliphate.

A Muslim supremacist?

WTF?

 

[Billo_Really]

That world government you pray to and $20 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Notice it was your Muslim Supremacist buddies who attempted to take land by conquest - they simply failed.

Let's not go over old history. Everyone knows that war started when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt. And your "Muslim Supremacist" accusations don't hold water as long as Israel are the occupiers is these areas.

 

[Billo_Really]

You‘re an authority in international law posting on US Messageboard?

Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (“What Weight to Conquest?”)

“As a general principle of international law, as that law has been reformed since the League, particularly by the Charter, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. But that principle must be read in particular cases together with other general principles, among them the still more general principle of which it is an application, namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. So read, the distinctions between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, between the taking of territory legally held and the taking of territory illegally held, become no less vital and correct than the central principle itself.”

"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's [The state formed by the union of the republics of Egypt and Syria in 1958] use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.

"It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.

"The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."

a) A state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defence may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defence.

b) As a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that state may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defence.

c) Where the prior holder of the territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

No, they did not act defensively! When you are the attacker, you are not defending. The war started when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt, which makes Israel the aggressor.

 

[MartyNYC]

No, they did not act defensively! When you are the attacker, you are not defending. The war started when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt, which makes Israel the aggressor.

You know less than nothing.

 

[Billo_Really]

You know less than nothing.

View attachment 737409

Did Israeli tanks roll into Egypt? Yes or no?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let's not go over old history. Everyone knows that war started when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt. And your "Muslim Supremacist" accusations don't hold water as long as Israel are the occupiers is these areas.

Israel rolled in on the Egyptian occupation force.

Don't try and bullshit us with your Muslim Supremacist propaganda.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did Israeli tanks roll into Egypt? Yes or no?

Were Egyptian troops massed for attack? Yes or no?