Gaza army

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Maybe. I could say the same about your premise: That it is not an international conflict.

How is the term "Armed Conflict" defined in international humanitarian law?
17-03-2008
Opinion paper - definition of "international armed conflict" and "non-international armed conflict" under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

The States parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have entrusted the ICRC, through the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, " to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any development thereof " Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, art. 5, para. 2(g).. It is on this basis that the ICRC takes this opportunity to present the prevailing legal opinion on the definition of " international armed conflict " and " non-international armed conflict " under International Humanitarian Law, the branch of international law which governs armed conflict.

International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and
  
  
• non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.

Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.
​

In order for your premise to be true, it has to be declared that the State of Israel does not exist; OR --- the State of Palestine does not exist; --- OR both do not exist as a State.

In order to be a "High Contracting Party" to the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, or the Rome Statutes, the "party" must be a state and have the capacity to enter into the agreement. Both the State of Israel (1948) and the State of Palestine (1988) have entered into treaties and agreements under the 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES:

PART II. CONCLUSION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF TREATIES
SECTION 1. CONCLUSION OF TREATIES

Article 6 Capacity of States to Conclude Treaties: Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.
​

You are basing your post on the false premise that this is an international conflict.

(REFENRENCES)

• Israel Declaration of Independence
• Israeli Declaration to Append the Application to the United Nations
• Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818)
• Favorable Recommendation of the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations, by the UN Security Council
• 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations
• Peace Treaty between The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
• Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel

(COMMENT)

I can demonstrate quite easily that Israel is a "state:"

• Established under its right to self-determination under the UN guidance proved in the Steps Preparatory to Independence found in General Assembly 181(II).
• Wherein the UN made an official and world-wide public press announcement that the GA/RES/181(II) was implemented.
• Where by the State of Israel made application for FULL membership to the UN.
• Where by the UN Security Council recommended the admission to the UN.
• Where by the General Assembly accepted the State of Israel as a FULL member.

So I only interpret that you are going to claim that the State of Israel was (somehow) illegal recognized by the UN membership and improperly recommended and forwarded by the Security Council. And I can only further imagine that where the UN recognition Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders; is flawed.

So, in order for the argument to be made that the conflict is not an international nature, there would be no State of Palestine (alla 1988).

Is that your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

Bleipriester, Roudy, et al,

As a coherent political policy concerning Palestine (the 1988 State of), Israel does not have a real firm future objective.

While the various political parties have their individual agendas, and positions, a collectively Israeli Foreign Policy really has not been formulated.

Israels long term agenda is the end of a Palestine area, so why should any Palestinian consider serious agreements with Israel?

(COMMENT)

The Israelis agree on the need to survive the long standing Arab Palestinian objective to evict the Jewish State. But much beyond that, the Israelis still are debating the future of their state and how it will develop regional relations.

The Arab Palestinians have formulated a long-term foreign policy based on the re-acquisition of the territory they believe is "their territory" as outlined by the Palestine Order in Council; within the boundaries determined by the Principal Allied Powers on the surrender of the Ottoman Empire. This has not changed substantially since 1948. And this is the contention the Israelis are still dealing with today.

As of yet, there is no reasonable expectation that any agreement made today with the Arab Palestinian will be honored for any length of time. The past history and behaviors of the Arab Palestinian has demonstrated that any agreed upon peace will be short term until the Arab Palestinians as mustered enough military might and political support to make another act of aggression to (in their eyes) liberate the territorial boundaries they consider their sovereign right; even though they have nothing that grants them that sovereign right.

The Arab Palestinians have made a solemn oath to continue the conflict until they liberate what they consider as Palestine. And until they abdicate that oath, they can be expected to be contained.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even Arafat wasn't negotiating in good faith, which is why the peace deal during Clinton's years fell apart. It hasn't been as much about establishing this mythical Palestine, as much as the desire to destroy the Jewish state. At its heart this conflict is about religious ideology and will remain so.

There is no jewish state.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be. Deal with it, you asylum escapee.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be.

...while it lasts.

It's lasted since its statehood was announced in 1948 and will continue to be a strong, prosperous democracy long after you're gone. Israel is here to stay.

 

[Roudy]

A link to what doesn't exist?

You suffer from Shaken Baby Syndrome, right?

Do you believe that the Supreme Court of Israel is telling lies then when they say that Israel a "belligerent occupier"?

So you now accept all of the supreme courts rulings and opinions, or just those that you can paraphrase and take out of context? But thanks for confirming that Israel is a democracy like the U.S. Where there is rule of law.

 

[Challenger]

Israel controls portions of the West Bank as do the islamics. You have no issue with islamist occupation.

Golan was seized as result of a failed war of aggression by Islamics.

Since when is East Jerusalem an Islamist waqf?

Congratulations on the back pedal and admitting that WB and Golan are occupied...

Now you just gotta get your heard around East Jerusalem being occupied...

No backpedal. Just giving you the facts. The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation. The West Bank is disputed territory.

Obviously your definition of occupation differs when applied to Islamic terrorists.

The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation

Oh dear, someone's forgotten that land can no longer be taken as "spoils of war", whether or not the war was "aggressive" or "defensive". The Golan is occupied by the Zionists who are attempting to seed colonies there and illegally annexed; not even America recognises the Golan as part of the Zionist "Greater Israel" project. The West bank is no longer disputed. Jordan gave up any claim in favour of the Palestinians. It's now Occupied Palestine.

It is illegal to acquire territory by force. It is also illegal to annex occupied territory.

Israel has placed itself into a bad situation.

But you excuse Islamic terrorists from the very actions you accuse Israel of doing.

You have really made no case for some "annexation" you claim. Yet, you rattle on with excuses for arab-moslem squatters and welfare cheats as having an entitlement to illegality.

She's off again....the native population has every right to the land they've lived in for over a thousand of years. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs who conquered Palestine in the 7th century dispossessed or removed the native population. The only people who were forced to leave were the Byzantine elites, who were given the choice to convert to Islam and stay or remain Christian and leave; most left. For at least a century afterwards the native cities, towns and communities remained largely self-governing, but paying taxes to the Arab overlords who took over the estates left by the Byzantine nobility. Gradually the natives converted from Christianity or Judaism and adopted Arab culture. there was never any colonisation in Palestine. The only squatters are the Jewish Europeans who started colonising Palestine in the late 19th early 20th century and the settlers who are now trying to colonise the what's left of historical Palestine.

Here's a good book you can read about the subject; it's apolitical,

The Great Arab Conquests How The Spread Of Islam Changed The World We Live In Amazon.co.uk Hugh Kennedy 9780753823897 Books

Or this one

In God s Path The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire Ancient Warfare and Civilization Amazon.co.uk Robert G. Hoyland 9780199916368 Books

Try them, they might just open your mind.......I won't hold my breath.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Apparently, the West Bank is disputed.

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

You, Tinmore, have no right to comment on the West Bank since you consider the whole of Israel to be "occupied". Come back when you are ready just to talk about the "territories".

Come back when you can prove me to be incorrect.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Roudy]

Bleipriester, Roudy, et al,

As a coherent political policy concerning Palestine (the 1988 State of), Israel does not have a real firm future objective.

While the various political parties have their individual agendas, and positions, a collectively Israeli Foreign Policy really has not been formulated.

Israels long term agenda is the end of a Palestine area, so why should any Palestinian consider serious agreements with Israel?

(COMMENT)

The Israelis agree on the need to survive the long standing Arab Palestinian objective to evict the Jewish State. But much beyond that, the Israelis still are debating the future of their state and how it will develop regional relations.

The Arab Palestinians have formulated a long-term foreign policy based on the re-acquisition of the territory they believe is "their territory" as outlined by the Palestine Order in Council; within the boundaries determined by the Principal Allied Powers on the surrender of the Ottoman Empire. This has not changed substantially since 1948. And this is the contention the Israelis are still dealing with today.

As of yet, there is no reasonable expectation that any agreement made today with the Arab Palestinian will be honored for any length of time. The past history and behaviors of the Arab Palestinian has demonstrated that any agreed upon peace will be short term until the Arab Palestinians as mustered enough military might and political support to make another act of aggression to (in their eyes) liberate the territorial boundaries they consider their sovereign right; even though they have nothing that grants them that sovereign right.

The Arab Palestinians have made a solemn oath to continue the conflict until they liberate what they consider as Palestine. And until they abdicate that oath, they can be expected to be contained.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even Arafat wasn't negotiating in good faith, which is why the peace deal during Clinton's years fell apart. It hasn't been as much about establishing this mythical Palestine, as much as the desire to destroy the Jewish state. At its heart this conflict is about religious ideology and will remain so.

There is no jewish state.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be. Deal with it, you asylum escapee.

Israel has not and is not and will not be a "jewish" state. From what I read its a secular state.

You read wrong. The problem Muslim savages have with Israel is that it's ruled by Jews. If it was ruled by one of these brutal Muslim regimes (take your pick) that was slaughtering and oppressing it's people, there wouldn't be anything unusual to talk about.

 

[Challenger]

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom

Nope, only the al-Qassem Brigades. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf

 

[Roudy]

Hamas is training 25,000 new fighters in gaza

Their way of planning for peace????

"Si vis pacem, para bellum".

Then why is the arab world so afraid that Israel might have a nuclear weapon?
Why do they object to Israel arming and controlling it's border and building fences and wall?
Why object to Israel controlling the 'free' flow of weapons into gaza?

they too are prepared if gaza attacks again

Gaza does not have the right to form it's own army. Any authorization for that would come from the PA.

Please don't give me that nonsense of gaza be voted to government. They were voted for seats in parliament, not to unilaterally take actions of military force or triggering a war with Israel. Gaza was taken by force.
Hamas' actions should have nullified any participation in parliament.
PLO renounced terrorism in 1988. Hamas is viewed as a terrorist group even by the PLO and is not a member.
Hamas does not have the right to act without parliaments approval.

Gaza does not have the legal authority to 'prepare for war'. They should not be armed at all.
It does not have a right to act on it's own at all

Hamas does not have the right to act without parliaments approval.​

Neither do the Fatah forces ruling the West Bank. But that is another story for another day.

Palestine has no army. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. are civilian militias. They are civilians defending their country.

What does the Geneva Conventions say about civilians defending their country? Interesting question.

Hamas has a military wing, thus your making excuses for Islamist terrorism is weak.

Hamas is a political party. It is not a government.

Then ISIS is a political party as well, by your definition. They are are fighting to establish an Islamic Shariah terrorist shithole in Iraq and Syria, and Hamas is fighting to do that in Israel. Hamas will fail, as others like it have.

 

[Hollie]

Congratulations on the back pedal and admitting that WB and Golan are occupied...

Now you just gotta get your heard around East Jerusalem being occupied...

No backpedal. Just giving you the facts. The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation. The West Bank is disputed territory.

Obviously your definition of occupation differs when applied to Islamic terrorists.

The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation

Oh dear, someone's forgotten that land can no longer be taken as "spoils of war", whether or not the war was "aggressive" or "defensive". The Golan is occupied by the Zionists who are attempting to seed colonies there and illegally annexed; not even America recognises the Golan as part of the Zionist "Greater Israel" project. The West bank is no longer disputed. Jordan gave up any claim in favour of the Palestinians. It's now Occupied Palestine.

It is illegal to acquire territory by force. It is also illegal to annex occupied territory.

Israel has placed itself into a bad situation.

But you excuse Islamic terrorists from the very actions you accuse Israel of doing.

You have really made no case for some "annexation" you claim. Yet, you rattle on with excuses for arab-moslem squatters and welfare cheats as having an entitlement to illegality.

She's off again....the native population has every right to the land they've lived in for over a thousand of years. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs who conquered Palestine in the 7th century dispossessed or removed the native population. The only people who were forced to leave were the Byzantine elites, who were given the choice to convert to Islam and stay or remain Christian and leave; most left. For at least a century afterwards the native cities, towns and communities remained largely self-governing, but paying taxes to the Arab overlords who took over the estates left by the Byzantine nobility. Gradually the natives converted from Christianity or Judaism and adopted Arab culture. there was never any colonisation in Palestine. The only squatters are the Jewish Europeans who started colonising Palestine in the late 19th early 20th century and the settlers who are now trying to colonise the what's left of historical Palestine.

Here's a good book you can read about the subject; it's apolitical,

The Great Arab Conquests How The Spread Of Islam Changed The World We Live In Amazon.co.uk Hugh Kennedy 9780753823897 Books

Or this one

In God s Path The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire Ancient Warfare and Civilization Amazon.co.uk Robert G. Hoyland 9780199916368 Books

Try them, they might just open your mind.......I won't hold my breath.

You are selectively and dishonestly ignoring the many times the area has been conquered and changed ownership.

You're also selectively and dishonestly choosing not to acknowledge that the Jews have a historical connection to the land that far predates the invention of islamism and Moslems.

 

[Challenger]

Bleipriester, Roudy, et al,

As a coherent political policy concerning Palestine (the 1988 State of), Israel does not have a real firm future objective.

While the various political parties have their individual agendas, and positions, a collectively Israeli Foreign Policy really has not been formulated.

(COMMENT)

The Israelis agree on the need to survive the long standing Arab Palestinian objective to evict the Jewish State. But much beyond that, the Israelis still are debating the future of their state and how it will develop regional relations.

The Arab Palestinians have formulated a long-term foreign policy based on the re-acquisition of the territory they believe is "their territory" as outlined by the Palestine Order in Council; within the boundaries determined by the Principal Allied Powers on the surrender of the Ottoman Empire. This has not changed substantially since 1948. And this is the contention the Israelis are still dealing with today.

As of yet, there is no reasonable expectation that any agreement made today with the Arab Palestinian will be honored for any length of time. The past history and behaviors of the Arab Palestinian has demonstrated that any agreed upon peace will be short term until the Arab Palestinians as mustered enough military might and political support to make another act of aggression to (in their eyes) liberate the territorial boundaries they consider their sovereign right; even though they have nothing that grants them that sovereign right.

The Arab Palestinians have made a solemn oath to continue the conflict until they liberate what they consider as Palestine. And until they abdicate that oath, they can be expected to be contained.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even Arafat wasn't negotiating in good faith, which is why the peace deal during Clinton's years fell apart. It hasn't been as much about establishing this mythical Palestine, as much as the desire to destroy the Jewish state. At its heart this conflict is about religious ideology and will remain so.

There is no jewish state.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be. Deal with it, you asylum escapee.

Israel has not and is not and will not be a "jewish" state. From what I read its a secular state.

You read wrong. The problem Muslim savages have with Israel is that it's ruled by Jews. If it was ruled by one of these brutal Muslim regimes (take your pick) that was slaughtering and oppressing it's people, there wouldn't be anything unusual to talk about.

The problem Muslims (and most other reasonable people for that matter) have with Israel is that it is ruled by Zionists, who just happen to be mainly Jewish, unfortunately. This confuses the Jewish diaspora into supporting what they would otherwise oppose vigorously, the savage and brutal oppression of one people by another.

 

[Humanity]

Apparently, the West Bank is disputed.

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

And the Pal Islamic terrorists.

For all the flailing of your Pom Poms in support of Islamic fascism, your heroes occupying Gaza are no closer now to their hoped-for Jooooooo genocide than they were decades ago.

That's what I call "putting the had in Gee-had".

You need to start backpedaling faster Hollie... hahahaha

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

Quick, pedal, pedal hahahaha

 

[Roudy]

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom

Nope, only the al-Qassem Brigades. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf

Which is the military wing of Hamas that is totally controlled by Hamas Ha ha ha. What a fool. And the EU, Canada, Japan, and Australia? How does it feel to be wrong so much Monte the MonkeyNazi, that you now have to resort to using your sock challenger to troll this forum?

 

[Hollie]

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom

Nope, only the al-Qassem Brigades. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf

Wrong. As usual.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...t_qCsfoxinf87jhGg&sig2=NW3JmKG2_zoDmGWG6VMTMQ

 

[Hollie]

Apparently, the West Bank is disputed.

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

And the Pal Islamic terrorists.

For all the flailing of your Pom Poms in support of Islamic fascism, your heroes occupying Gaza are no closer now to their hoped-for Jooooooo genocide than they were decades ago.

That's what I call "putting the had in Gee-had".

You need to start backpedaling faster Hollie... hahahaha

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

Quick, pedal, pedal hahahaha

No need to flail your Pom Poms for the squatters and welfare cheats you admire.

The disputed territories are called "disputed" for reason. Can you guess what that reason is?

 

[Humanity]

A link to what doesn't exist?

You suffer from Shaken Baby Syndrome, right?

Do you believe that the Supreme Court of Israel is telling lies then when they say that Israel a "belligerent occupier"?

So you now accept all of the supreme courts rulings and opinions, or just those that you can paraphrase and take out of context? But thanks for confirming that Israel is a democracy like the U.S. Where there is rule of law.

I don't track every judgement or opinion of the Supreme Court of Israel.. .Do you? Unlikely!

There is no debate whether the Supreme Court considers Israel a "belligerent occupier"... No paraphrasing, no out of context... Just simple fact...

I have NEVER said that Israel ISN'T a democracy...

 

[Challenger]

No backpedal. Just giving you the facts. The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation. The West Bank is disputed territory.

Obviously your definition of occupation differs when applied to Islamic terrorists.

The Golan being a spoil of war suggests no occupation

Oh dear, someone's forgotten that land can no longer be taken as "spoils of war", whether or not the war was "aggressive" or "defensive". The Golan is occupied by the Zionists who are attempting to seed colonies there and illegally annexed; not even America recognises the Golan as part of the Zionist "Greater Israel" project. The West bank is no longer disputed. Jordan gave up any claim in favour of the Palestinians. It's now Occupied Palestine.

It is illegal to acquire territory by force. It is also illegal to annex occupied territory.

Israel has placed itself into a bad situation.

But you excuse Islamic terrorists from the very actions you accuse Israel of doing.

You have really made no case for some "annexation" you claim. Yet, you rattle on with excuses for arab-moslem squatters and welfare cheats as having an entitlement to illegality.

She's off again....the native population has every right to the land they've lived in for over a thousand of years. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs who conquered Palestine in the 7th century dispossessed or removed the native population. The only people who were forced to leave were the Byzantine elites, who were given the choice to convert to Islam and stay or remain Christian and leave; most left. For at least a century afterwards the native cities, towns and communities remained largely self-governing, but paying taxes to the Arab overlords who took over the estates left by the Byzantine nobility. Gradually the natives converted from Christianity or Judaism and adopted Arab culture. there was never any colonisation in Palestine. The only squatters are the Jewish Europeans who started colonising Palestine in the late 19th early 20th century and the settlers who are now trying to colonise the what's left of historical Palestine.

Here's a good book you can read about the subject; it's apolitical,

The Great Arab Conquests How The Spread Of Islam Changed The World We Live In Amazon.co.uk Hugh Kennedy 9780753823897 Books

Or this one

In God s Path The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire Ancient Warfare and Civilization Amazon.co.uk Robert G. Hoyland 9780199916368 Books

Try them, they might just open your mind.......I won't hold my breath.

You are selectively and dishonestly ignoring the many times the area has been conquered and changed ownership.

You're also selectively and dishonestly choosing not to acknowledge that the Jews have a historical connection to the land that far predates the invention of islamism and Moslems.

No I'm not.

Jewish monotheism may well have developed in the Judean hills and amongst a few local warlords for a short time in the pre-historic past, so there's a tenuous connection there. Judaism however, was invented and developed in Babylonia by Judean exiles so there's a far greater connection with Iraq than Palestine in that regard.

Here are two more good books well worth the read:

The Invention of the Jewish People Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781844676231 Books

The Invention of the Land of Israel From Holy Land to Homeland Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781781680834 Books

again, I won't hold my breath.

 

[Humanity]

Apparently, the West Bank is disputed.

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

And the Pal Islamic terrorists.

For all the flailing of your Pom Poms in support of Islamic fascism, your heroes occupying Gaza are no closer now to their hoped-for Jooooooo genocide than they were decades ago.

That's what I call "putting the had in Gee-had".

You need to start backpedaling faster Hollie... hahahaha

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

Quick, pedal, pedal hahahaha

No need to flail your Pom Poms for the squatters and welfare cheats you admire.

The disputed territories are called "disputed" for reason. Can you guess what that reason is?

They are called "disputed" by ONE country... Israel...

For the rest of the planet it is "occupied".

Can you guess why ONLY Israel, as the occupiers, call it "disputed"?

It's like taking candy from a baby with some people hahahahaha

 

[Roudy]

Even Arafat wasn't negotiating in good faith, which is why the peace deal during Clinton's years fell apart. It hasn't been as much about establishing this mythical Palestine, as much as the desire to destroy the Jewish state. At its heart this conflict is about religious ideology and will remain so.

There is no jewish state.

Israel is a Jewish state and will always be. Deal with it, you asylum escapee.

Israel has not and is not and will not be a "jewish" state. From what I read its a secular state.

You read wrong. The problem Muslim savages have with Israel is that it's ruled by Jews. If it was ruled by one of these brutal Muslim regimes (take your pick) that was slaughtering and oppressing it's people, there wouldn't be anything unusual to talk about.

The problem Muslims (and most other reasonable people for that matter) have with Israel is that it is ruled by Zionists, who just happen to be mainly Jewish, unfortunately. This confuses the Jewish diaspora into supporting what they would otherwise oppose vigorously, the savage and brutal oppression of one people by another.

islam has been at war with the non Muslim world and will be for the foreseeable time. Israel is just one of the many hotspots and it is doing a great job dealing with the medieval savages. Muslims want to destroy Israel because it is a Jewish state. Come on Monte. Wake up and smell the Jihad.

 

[Hollie]

Apparently, the West Bank is disputed.

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

And the Pal Islamic terrorists.

For all the flailing of your Pom Poms in support of Islamic fascism, your heroes occupying Gaza are no closer now to their hoped-for Jooooooo genocide than they were decades ago.

That's what I call "putting the had in Gee-had".

You need to start backpedaling faster Hollie... hahahaha

The only country to call the West Bank "disputed" is.... Israel

Quick, pedal, pedal hahahaha

No need to flail your Pom Poms for the squatters and welfare cheats you admire.

The disputed territories are called "disputed" for reason. Can you guess what that reason is?

They are called "disputed" by ONE country... Israel...

For the rest of the planet it is "occupied".

Can you guess why ONLY Israel, as the occupiers, call it "disputed"?

It's like taking candy from a baby with some people hahahahaha

That's the same phony claim you made before which you couldn't support.

 

[Hollie]

Oh dear, someone's forgotten that land can no longer be taken as "spoils of war", whether or not the war was "aggressive" or "defensive". The Golan is occupied by the Zionists who are attempting to seed colonies there and illegally annexed; not even America recognises the Golan as part of the Zionist "Greater Israel" project. The West bank is no longer disputed. Jordan gave up any claim in favour of the Palestinians. It's now Occupied Palestine.

It is illegal to acquire territory by force. It is also illegal to annex occupied territory.

Israel has placed itself into a bad situation.

But you excuse Islamic terrorists from the very actions you accuse Israel of doing.

You have really made no case for some "annexation" you claim. Yet, you rattle on with excuses for arab-moslem squatters and welfare cheats as having an entitlement to illegality.

She's off again....the native population has every right to the land they've lived in for over a thousand of years. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs who conquered Palestine in the 7th century dispossessed or removed the native population. The only people who were forced to leave were the Byzantine elites, who were given the choice to convert to Islam and stay or remain Christian and leave; most left. For at least a century afterwards the native cities, towns and communities remained largely self-governing, but paying taxes to the Arab overlords who took over the estates left by the Byzantine nobility. Gradually the natives converted from Christianity or Judaism and adopted Arab culture. there was never any colonisation in Palestine. The only squatters are the Jewish Europeans who started colonising Palestine in the late 19th early 20th century and the settlers who are now trying to colonise the what's left of historical Palestine.

Here's a good book you can read about the subject; it's apolitical,

The Great Arab Conquests How The Spread Of Islam Changed The World We Live In Amazon.co.uk Hugh Kennedy 9780753823897 Books

Or this one

In God s Path The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire Ancient Warfare and Civilization Amazon.co.uk Robert G. Hoyland 9780199916368 Books

Try them, they might just open your mind.......I won't hold my breath.

You are selectively and dishonestly ignoring the many times the area has been conquered and changed ownership.

You're also selectively and dishonestly choosing not to acknowledge that the Jews have a historical connection to the land that far predates the invention of islamism and Moslems.

No I'm not.

Jewish monotheism may well have developed in the Judean hills and amongst a few local warlords for a short time in the pre-historic past, so there's a tenuous connection there. Judaism however, was invented and developed in Babylonia by Judean exiles so there's a far greater connection with Iraq than Palestine in that regard.

Here are two more good books well worth the read:

The Invention of the Jewish People Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781844676231 Books

The Invention of the Land of Israel From Holy Land to Homeland Amazon.co.uk Shlomo Sand 9781781680834 Books

again, I won't hold my breath.

You can hold your breath for as long as you wish. It's just a fact that Judaism existed in the area of Palestine long before the invention of islamism by a desert child molester.

You are aware that muhammud (swish) stole ruthlessly from both Judaism and Christianity in the formulation of his politico-religious ideology, right?.