Who really owns Palestine?

[Hossfly]

There is no such thing as "Palestine"

Then why does the Balfour Declaration state a preference for a "Jewish homeland" in "Palestine."

There is a region in the Eastern U.S. known as the Piedmont. It covers 9 states plus the District of Columbia and stretches from New Jersey to Alabama. There is similarly a region called Palestine that stretches from Jordan, Lebanon and Syria to Israel and Egypt. Piedmont is not a state and neither is Palestine. We dont call ourselves "Piedmonters" and those sandfleas in the Mid-East shouldn't call themselves "Palestinian". No such animal.

 

[Hollie]

Read the Hamas Charter. It is a virulently hateful manifesto of muhammud (swish) -given Islamosupremacy, and it is the blueprint for the fascist ideology embraced by Hamas.

It spells out in explicit detail that all land in the area is an islamist waqf and belongs in perpetuity to The Moslems.

Stop being stupid, ya' moron.

The only link to the "Hamas Charter" I have ever seen comes from a pro jew site, have you a new link?

Yes, I do.

 

[Hossfly]

Read the Hamas Charter. It is a virulently hateful manifesto of muhammud (swish) -given Islamosupremacy, and it is the blueprint for the fascist ideology embraced by Hamas.

It spells out in explicit detail that all land in the area is an islamist waqf and belongs in perpetuity to The Moslems.

Stop being stupid, ya' moron.

The only link to the "Hamas Charter" I have ever seen comes from a pro jew site, have you a new link?

Look it up.

Occupied Palestine | ?????? | Search Results

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, I do.

In the spirit of trying to trick people into thinking you know something...

...this ones for you!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYpwAtnywTk]How to trick people into thinking you're good looking - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

Yes, I do.

In the spirit of trying to trick people into thinking you know something...

...this ones for you!

In the spirit of not rewarding your ignorance:

 

[Hossfly]

Read the Hamas Charter. It is a virulently hateful manifesto of muhammud (swish) -given Islamosupremacy, and it is the blueprint for the fascist ideology embraced by Hamas.

It spells out in explicit detail that all land in the area is an islamist waqf and belongs in perpetuity to The Moslems.

Stop being stupid, ya' moron.

The only link to the "Hamas Charter" I have ever seen comes from a pro jew site, have you a new link?

Here's another link.

Charters/Constitutions - Hamas Charter

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

There are any number of places, on-line, that the HAMAS Charter can be acquired.

Read the Hamas Charter. It is a virulently hateful manifesto of muhammud (swish) -given Islamosupremacy, and it is the blueprint for the fascist ideology embraced by Hamas.

It spells out in explicit detail that all land in the area is an islamist waqf and belongs in perpetuity to The Moslems.

Stop being stupid, ya' moron.

The only link to the "Hamas Charter" I have ever seen comes from a pro jew site, have you a new link?

Yes, I do.

(COMMENT)

The most common links used are:

CHARTER OF THE ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (HAMAS) OF PALESTINE from the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS), a pro-Palestinian site.

OR​

The Avalon Project from the Yale Law School: The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

et al,

There are any number of places, on-line, that the HAMAS Charter can be acquired.

The only link to the "Hamas Charter" I have ever seen comes from a pro jew site, have you a new link?

Yes, I do.

(COMMENT)

The most common links used are:

CHARTER OF THE ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (HAMAS) OF PALESTINE from the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS), a pro-Palestinian site.

OR​

The Avalon Project from the Yale Law School: The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks, Rocco and Hoss, but there's not a chance, not a chance in hell that Jos was being honest when he claimed the Hamas Charter was only "them there Jooooooo" sites .

 

[aris2chat]

et al,

There are any number of places, on-line, that the HAMAS Charter can be acquired.

Yes, I do.

(COMMENT)

The most common links used are:

CHARTER OF THE ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (HAMAS) OF PALESTINE from the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS), a pro-Palestinian site.

OR​

The Avalon Project from the Yale Law School: The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks, Rocco and Hoss, but there's not a chance, not a chance in hell that Jos was being honest when he claimed the Hamas Charter was only "them there Jooooooo" sites .

????? ???? ???????? ????????? ????

maybe in arabic?

 

[WillReadmore]

what "ethnic cleansing" ?? In 1948----after years of violence directed against jews
by arab/muslims in the PALESTINE MANDATE-----the palestine mandate was
PARTITIONED. Partitioning lands left over from both the OTTOMAN EMPIRES
and the BRITISH EMPIRES in order to separate people at each others throats
was -----THE CUSTOM OF THE DAY. In 1948 INDIA was also PARTITIONED.

If you ever meet a pakistani or even an Indian muslim-----he will tell you about the
MASSIVE GENOCIDE hindus comitted against muslims I heard all about it more
than 45 years ago when I first ran into muslims from south east asia -------
IN MASSIVE DETAIL AND WITH ENDLESS INDIGNATION AND JOYFUL PREDICTIONS
OF BLOODY REVENGE (the hindu version was
not quite so exciting---more like "lots of people died")

In order to understand the situation of the middle east----you need a bit of a
grasp on history-----not the fairy tale version

btw ----even Cyprus was partitioned ---little calm peaceful cyprus

???

You say "What ethnic cleansing?" and then you talk about all sorts of other situations around the world. The issue in this thread is Palestine and Israel.

Please remember that "ethnic cleansing" doesn't mean "genocide". Genocide can certainly be used in ethnic cleansing, but it is NOT part of the definition.

 

[RoccoR]

WillReadmore, et al,

This is a very important point. And it needs to be emphasized.

Please remember that "ethnic cleansing" doesn't mean "genocide". Genocide can certainly be used in ethnic cleansing, but it is NOT part of the definition.

(COMMENT)

The original solemn declaration by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, before the Jewish Agency 15 MAY 1948 was a threat of a very defined scope:

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 women and child."​

SOURCE: A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948

The threat was communicated to the Secretary-General 6 February 1948 by representatives of the Arab Higher Committee; the committee reconstituted by the Arab League in November 1945. When you evaluated what the actual threat made by the you must also consider the definition.

Article 6 : Genocide

For the purpose of this Statute, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.​

Article 7 : Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.​

SOURCE: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Some evaluations consider the language used --- "wipe them out – man women and child" as a threat communicating "extermination;" which was an expression of intent to commit a Crime Against Humanity (of the highest order). Others evaluations suggest that the intent was to " " a culture on the basis of a nationality, ethnical origin, or the Jewish religious component. This would make the threat more oriented towards "genocide."

In some respects, the intent, and the follow-on demonstration to carry-out that threat (3 wars, multiple intafada's, and Jihadist/Fedayeen acts of terrorism) are subjective.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[WillReadmore]

Some evaluations consider the language used --- "wipe them out – man women and child" as a threat communicating "extermination;" which was an expression of intent to commit a Crime Against Humanity (of the highest order). Others evaluations suggest that the intent was to " " a culture on the basis of a nationality, ethnical origin, or the Jewish religious component. This would make the threat more oriented towards "genocide."

In some respects, the intent, and the follow-on demonstration to carry-out that threat (3 wars, multiple intafada's, and Jihadist/Fedayeen acts of terrorism) are subjective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you going to suggest that this statement of 1948 is a justification for ethnic cleansing???

These people were having their land stolen from them. They objected in the strongest terms they could muster.

Since then, they lost. Today, 65 YEARS later, Abbas states unequivocally that they are prepared to live in peace within the borders as set, plus negotiated modifications.

What do YOU consider to be justification for ethnic cleansing? Maybe we should just discuss that in the abstract so it doesn't get tangled with religious and ethnic hate. Then, we could move from there to determine cases where YOUR justifications might apply.

 

[Hossfly]

Some evaluations consider the language used --- "wipe them out – man women and child" as a threat communicating "extermination;" which was an expression of intent to commit a Crime Against Humanity (of the highest order). Others evaluations suggest that the intent was to " " a culture on the basis of a nationality, ethnical origin, or the Jewish religious component. This would make the threat more oriented towards "genocide."

In some respects, the intent, and the follow-on demonstration to carry-out that threat (3 wars, multiple intafada's, and Jihadist/Fedayeen acts of terrorism) are subjective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you going to suggest that this statement of 1948 is a justification for ethnic cleansing???

These people were having their land stolen from them. They objected in the strongest terms they could muster.

Since then, they lost. Today, 65 YEARS later, Abbas states unequivocally that they are prepared to live in peace within the borders as set, plus negotiated modifications.

What do YOU consider to be justification for ethnic cleansing? Maybe we should just discuss that in the abstract so it doesn't get tangled with religious and ethnic hate. Then, we could move from there to determine cases where YOUR justifications might apply.

How about an atmosphere where people don't have to carry weapons all the time. Christ, the Palis act like they're living in 1870 Dodge City.

 

[WillReadmore]

Some evaluations consider the language used --- "wipe them out – man women and child" as a threat communicating "extermination;" which was an expression of intent to commit a Crime Against Humanity (of the highest order). Others evaluations suggest that the intent was to " " a culture on the basis of a nationality, ethnical origin, or the Jewish religious component. This would make the threat more oriented towards "genocide."

In some respects, the intent, and the follow-on demonstration to carry-out that threat (3 wars, multiple intafada's, and Jihadist/Fedayeen acts of terrorism) are subjective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you going to suggest that this statement of 1948 is a justification for ethnic cleansing???

These people were having their land stolen from them. They objected in the strongest terms they could muster.

Since then, they lost. Today, 65 YEARS later, Abbas states unequivocally that they are prepared to live in peace within the borders as set, plus negotiated modifications.

What do YOU consider to be justification for ethnic cleansing? Maybe we should just discuss that in the abstract so it doesn't get tangled with religious and ethnic hate. Then, we could move from there to determine cases where YOUR justifications might apply.

How about an atmosphere where people don't have to carry weapons all the time. Christ, the Palis act like they're living in 1870 Dodge City.

You're in favor of gun control?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

 

[georgephillip]

There is no such thing as "Palestine"

Then why does the Balfour Declaration state a preference for a "Jewish homeland" in "Palestine."

There is a region in the Eastern U.S. known as the Piedmont. It covers 9 states plus the District of Columbia and stretches from New Jersey to Alabama. There is similarly a region called Palestine that stretches from Jordan, Lebanon and Syria to Israel and Egypt. Piedmont is not a state and neither is Palestine. We dont call ourselves "Piedmonters" and those sandfleas in the Mid-East shouldn't call themselves "Palestinian". No such animal.

Palestine has referred to the land between the River and the sea since 1922 at least, Hossie. Syria and Lebanon were carved up by Sykes-Picot and Israel wasn't in existence until 1948. Apparently, Lord Rothschild wasn't up to the challenge of colonizing the Piedmont, yet I can't help wondering if he would have had your support?

 

[Hossfly]

Are you going to suggest that this statement of 1948 is a justification for ethnic cleansing???

These people were having their land stolen from them. They objected in the strongest terms they could muster.

Since then, they lost. Today, 65 YEARS later, Abbas states unequivocally that they are prepared to live in peace within the borders as set, plus negotiated modifications.

What do YOU consider to be justification for ethnic cleansing? Maybe we should just discuss that in the abstract so it doesn't get tangled with religious and ethnic hate. Then, we could move from there to determine cases where YOUR justifications might apply.

How about an atmosphere where people don't have to carry weapons all the time. Christ, the Palis act like they're living in 1870 Dodge City.

You're in favor of gun control?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Only for Arab heathens do I favor gun control.

 

[Hossfly]

Then why does the Balfour Declaration state a preference for a "Jewish homeland" in "Palestine."

There is a region in the Eastern U.S. known as the Piedmont. It covers 9 states plus the District of Columbia and stretches from New Jersey to Alabama. There is similarly a region called Palestine that stretches from Jordan, Lebanon and Syria to Israel and Egypt. Piedmont is not a state and neither is Palestine. We dont call ourselves "Piedmonters" and those sandfleas in the Mid-East shouldn't call themselves "Palestinian". No such animal.

Palestine has referred to the land between the River and the sea since 1922 at least, Hossie. Syria and Lebanon were carved up by Sykes-Picot and Israel wasn't in existence until 1948. Apparently, Lord Rothschild wasn't up to the challenge of colonizing the Piedmont, yet I can't help wondering if he would have had your support?

Hoss apples. You should take a course in history.

 

[RoccoR]

WillReadmore; et al,

I didn't make an implication or equivocation at all. I discussed the nuance in the terminology.

Some evaluations consider the language used --- "wipe them out – man women and child" as a threat communicating "extermination;" which was an expression of intent to commit a Crime Against Humanity (of the highest order). Others evaluations suggest that the intent was to " " a culture on the basis of a nationality, ethnical origin, or the Jewish religious component. This would make the threat more oriented towards "genocide."

In some respects, the intent, and the follow-on demonstration to carry-out that threat (3 wars, multiple intafada's, and Jihadist/Fedayeen acts of terrorism) are subjective.

Are you going to suggest that this statement of 1948 is a justification for ethnic cleansing???

These people were having their land stolen from them. They objected in the strongest terms they could muster.

(COMMENT)

First - the "ethnic cleansing," as in the forced relocation of the Jews from England (1290), France (1306), Hungary (1349-1360), Provence (1394 and 1490), Austria (1421), Lithuania (1445), Cracow (1494), Portugal (1497), is a much different thing than the "genocide" Holocaust of WWII or the threat posed by the Arabs to threat to "wipe them out." Given the choice of "forced relocation" and "mass extermination" --- it is obvious which of the two is more horrific.

The events of 1948 were instigated by the Arab Palestinian and the Arab League. There is ample official records that demonstrate the Arab intentions.

Since then, they lost. Today, 65 YEARS later, Abbas states unequivocally that they are prepared to live in peace within the borders as set, plus negotiated modifications.

(COMMENT)

I have not seen that. In fact, I see the exact opposite; demonstrated in both word and deeds. The Palestinians are militant criminal extortionist, making unreasonable demands in exchange for a peace to a conflict they inspired in 1948.

In an article published July 16, 2013 on Felesteen.ps, a website affiliated with Hamas, Hamas Refugee Affairs Department head Dr 'Issam 'Adwan argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

SOURCE: Friday, July 19, 2013 HAMAS

The intent is the intent. Their history of behaviors does not differ from those exhibited by Izz ad-din al-Qassam and the Palestinian Black Hand.

A cache of unregistered weapons was found at a diplomatic residence where a Palestinian envoy was killed by an explosion, officials said Friday.

Ambassador Jamal al-Jamal died Wednesday after what authorities described as an accidental explosion involving the safe at his home in Prague, Czech Republic.
Officers searching the house following the blast found enough weapons to arm a ten-man combat unit, police said.

SOURCE: NBC World News Fri Jan 3, 2014 8:37 AM EST

What do YOU consider to be justification for ethnic cleansing? Maybe we should just discuss that in the abstract so it doesn't get tangled with religious and ethnic hate. Then, we could move from there to determine cases where YOUR justifications might apply.

(COMMENT)

I did not specify a justification. However, every nation has the right to self-defense under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the Charter.

While neither side has completely clean hands, there is very little question that the Arabs attacked first, and the Arabs were attempting to reverse the decision of the General Assembly, through the use of force, to implement and support the decision of the Jewish Agency to declare independence. And whether we frame it under todays Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations was adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970 [Resolution 26/25 (XXV)], or we examine it through the lens of a Post-War era of 1947/48, the Palestinians were choosing the path of force and violence rather than settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I did not specify a justification. However, every nation has the right to self-defense under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the Charter.

You never posted anything on how the Palestinians became exempt from international law.

You think that the Palestinians have no right to self defense.

 

[Indeependent]

I did not specify a justification. However, every nation has the right to self-defense under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the Charter.

You never posted anything on how the Palestinians became exempt from international law.

You think that the Palestinians have no right to self defense.

They get weapons, they use them, they lose.
This cycle is not so bad as it has driven the Kikes to perfect warfare and make 1.2 billion potential **** murderers murder each other.
I rather enjoy this cycle of Arab Emotional Disturbance.