Israel does not exist

[Humanity]

I knew you could't actually answer the question so I prepared this earlier...

Hamas - Terrorist Organisation

YES?

or

NO?

Choose one!

Why should I single out Hamas when there are much worse terrorists out there?

So basically you don't believe Hamas a terrorist organisation...

Pretty much sums up your thought processes!

I don't think I will bother responding to your future posts... And I cannot understand why ANYONE would bother!

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

So, where does this terrorist label come from? Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign against the Palestinians.

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention. It is not a country and they could not care less to follow it.


When a group like Hamas, and all other groups in Gaza choose to "Terrorize" others, be they Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc with the intention of destroying a country......

It is called TERRORISM. Their parent, the Muslim Brotherhood is also considered to be a terrorist group. Just ask other Arab countries.

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention.

Links?

You don't get this 'cannot prove a negative' thing do you!!!

You got links to show that Hamas HAS followed the Geneva Convention?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The name callers always attack Hamas when Israel is 100 times worse? Never a peep about that.

My biggest beef it the gross double standard?

BTW, is attacking criminals terrorism? Both Israel and Hamas do the same thing. Israel fires in the direction of the rockets and Hamas fires in the direction of the tanks and airplanes. The only difference is that Israel mooches better weapons.

I knew you could't actually answer the question so I prepared this earlier...

Hamas - Terrorist Organisation

YES?

or

NO?

Choose one!

Why should I single out Hamas when there are much worse terrorists out there?

So basically you don't believe Hamas a terrorist organisation...

Pretty much sums up your thought processes!

I don't think I will bother responding to your future posts... And I cannot understand why ANYONE would bother!

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

So, where does this terrorist label come from? Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign against the Palestinians.

Well, shall we just say that it's easier to list those that do NOT consider Hamas a terrorist group....

Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Brazil, Turkey, China, Qatar and P F Tinmore.

That was easy wasn't it!

Only a handful of all the countries in the world do the terrorist name calling against Hamas. Most don't.

The EU did but their court ruled that the criteria used for that designation was bogus.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why should I single out Hamas when there are much worse terrorists out there?

So basically you don't believe Hamas a terrorist organisation...

Pretty much sums up your thought processes!

I don't think I will bother responding to your future posts... And I cannot understand why ANYONE would bother!

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

So, where does this terrorist label come from? Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign against the Palestinians.

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention. It is not a country and they could not care less to follow it.


When a group like Hamas, and all other groups in Gaza choose to "Terrorize" others, be they Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc with the intention of destroying a country......

It is called TERRORISM. Their parent, the Muslim Brotherhood is also considered to be a terrorist group. Just ask other Arab countries.

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention.

Links?

You don't get this 'cannot prove a negative' thing do you!!!

You got links to show that Hamas HAS followed the Geneva Convention?

Then why did he make a statement if he cannot back it up?

 

[Sixties Fan]

So basically you don't believe Hamas a terrorist organisation...

Pretty much sums up your thought processes!

I don't think I will bother responding to your future posts... And I cannot understand why ANYONE would bother!

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

So, where does this terrorist label come from? Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign against the Palestinians.

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention. It is not a country and they could not care less to follow it.


When a group like Hamas, and all other groups in Gaza choose to "Terrorize" others, be they Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc with the intention of destroying a country......

It is called TERRORISM. Their parent, the Muslim Brotherhood is also considered to be a terrorist group. Just ask other Arab countries.

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention.

Links?

You don't get this 'cannot prove a negative' thing do you!!!

You got links to show that Hamas HAS followed the Geneva Convention?

Then why did he make a statement if he cannot back it up?

Go and read the Geneva convention.
It states that a military or militia cannot hide amongst civilians while attacking a country, etc.

What did Hamas do, in the really NOT densely populated areas of Gaza?

Did it go away from all civilians in order to fire its rockets against Israel? NO

Did it stock its ammunition away from civilian buildings and civilian areas? NO

Here is what some experts think of the way Hamas conducts itself:

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Is Gaza a country?
Is it a signatory of the Geneva Convention?
Does it act by any recognized laws of war?

Does Geneva Convention apply to countries which aren't signatories?

 

[Shusha]

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

And that is a poor excuse for an understanding of international humanitarian law. The assumption you make is that since "nationals of an occupying power" are not "protected persons" under GCIV, it is permissible, legally, to treat such civilians as combatants. This is a gross misunderstanding of IHL. (Though it is much less likely to be a misunderstanding as it is to be a deliberately-contrived excuse for permitting the murder of Israeli civilians and justifying terrorism).

It also depends on an interpretation of law which extends Israel's "occupation" to the entire territory -- which is a blatant disregard of legal precepts.

As an example:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of war, Article 3.1


The idea that it is permissible to kill civilians, or attack indiscriminately in areas of civilian presence is legally ridiculous and morally reprehensible.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

So, where does this terrorist label come from? Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign against the Palestinians.

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention. It is not a country and they could not care less to follow it.


When a group like Hamas, and all other groups in Gaza choose to "Terrorize" others, be they Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc with the intention of destroying a country......

It is called TERRORISM. Their parent, the Muslim Brotherhood is also considered to be a terrorist group. Just ask other Arab countries.

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention.

Links?

You don't get this 'cannot prove a negative' thing do you!!!

You got links to show that Hamas HAS followed the Geneva Convention?

Then why did he make a statement if he cannot back it up?

Go and read the Geneva convention.
It states that a military or militia cannot hide amongst civilians while attacking a country, etc.

What did Hamas do, in the really NOT densely populated areas of Gaza?

Did it go away from all civilians in order to fire its rockets against Israel? NO

Did it stock its ammunition away from civilian buildings and civilian areas? NO

Here is what some experts think of the way Hamas conducts itself:

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com

Here is what some experts think of the way Hamas conducts itself:

From December 24, 2008​

- The rocket attacks from Hamas increase and so do the retaliation air strikes from Israel.​

Why don't they mention that the rockets are in retaliation for the siege which is an act of war. Not to mention that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire.

Some "experts."

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is Gaza a country?
Is it a signatory of the Geneva Convention?
Does it act by any recognized laws of war?

Does Geneva Convention apply to countries which aren't signatories?

Thank you. Clear as mud.

Then there is:

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

 

[Sixties Fan]

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention. It is not a country and they could not care less to follow it.


When a group like Hamas, and all other groups in Gaza choose to "Terrorize" others, be they Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc with the intention of destroying a country......

It is called TERRORISM. Their parent, the Muslim Brotherhood is also considered to be a terrorist group. Just ask other Arab countries.

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com

Hamas has never followed the Geneva Convention.

Links?

You don't get this 'cannot prove a negative' thing do you!!!

You got links to show that Hamas HAS followed the Geneva Convention?

Then why did he make a statement if he cannot back it up?

Go and read the Geneva convention.
It states that a military or militia cannot hide amongst civilians while attacking a country, etc.

What did Hamas do, in the really NOT densely populated areas of Gaza?

Did it go away from all civilians in order to fire its rockets against Israel? NO

Did it stock its ammunition away from civilian buildings and civilian areas? NO

Here is what some experts think of the way Hamas conducts itself:

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com

Here is what some experts think of the way Hamas conducts itself:

From December 24, 2008
- The rocket attacks from Hamas increase and so do the retaliation air strikes from Israel.​

Why don't they mention that the rockets are in retaliation for the siege which is an act of war. Not to mention that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire.

Some "experts."

Because there is no "siege".
There is an embargo, a legal one, caused by Hamas taking over Gaza and mostly for the 14,000 rockets they and all other groups in Gaza have been firing on Israel, destroying property, harming and even killing civilians.

Israel left Gaza. All of it. There was a civil war between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas won. Hamas chose to fire rockets instead of building a State. One like Israel, not one like all the other Arab states, which would have happened if Hamas had not wasted all of it in tunnels, mansions, expensive cars, and most of that money ending up in Hamas leaders' pocket.

The rockets are a clear intention of Hamas charter where it states that it wants to destroy Israel.

Which ceasefire you think Israel broke can only come from an Anti Israel source, which is all you read.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

And that is a poor excuse for an understanding of international humanitarian law. The assumption you make is that since "nationals of an occupying power" are not "protected persons" under GCIV, it is permissible, legally, to treat such civilians as combatants. This is a gross misunderstanding of IHL. (Though it is much less likely to be a misunderstanding as it is to be a deliberately-contrived excuse for permitting the murder of Israeli civilians and justifying terrorism).

It also depends on an interpretation of law which extends Israel's "occupation" to the entire territory -- which is a blatant disregard of legal precepts.

As an example:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of war, Article 3.1


The idea that it is permissible to kill civilians, or attack indiscriminately in areas of civilian presence is legally ridiculous and morally reprehensible.

We cannot even define the conflict so we cannot determine what is legal or illegal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Links?

You don't get this 'cannot prove a negative' thing do you!!!

You got links to show that Hamas HAS followed the Geneva Convention?

Then why did he make a statement if he cannot back it up?

Go and read the Geneva convention.
It states that a military or militia cannot hide amongst civilians while attacking a country, etc.

What did Hamas do, in the really NOT densely populated areas of Gaza?

Did it go away from all civilians in order to fire its rockets against Israel? NO

Did it stock its ammunition away from civilian buildings and civilian areas? NO

Here is what some experts think of the way Hamas conducts itself:

Timeline: The evolution of Hamas - CNN.com

Here is what some experts think of the way Hamas conducts itself:

From December 24, 2008
- The rocket attacks from Hamas increase and so do the retaliation air strikes from Israel.​

Why don't they mention that the rockets are in retaliation for the siege which is an act of war. Not to mention that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire.

Some "experts."

Because there is no "siege".
There is an embargo, a legal one, caused by Hamas taking over Gaza and mostly for the 14,000 rockets they and all other groups in Gaza have been firing on Israel, destroying property, harming and even killing civilians.

Israel left Gaza. All of it. There was a civil war between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas won. Hamas chose to fire rockets instead of building a State. One like Israel, not one like all the other Arab states, which would have happened if Hamas had not wasted all of it in tunnels, mansions, expensive cars, and most of that money ending up in Hamas leaders' pocket.

The rockets are a clear intention of Hamas charter where it states that it wants to destroy Israel.

Which ceasefire you think Israel broke can only come from an Anti Israel source, which is all you read.

Israel left Gaza.

See, your whole shtick is based on false premise.

 

[Indeependent]

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

And that is a poor excuse for an understanding of international humanitarian law. The assumption you make is that since "nationals of an occupying power" are not "protected persons" under GCIV, it is permissible, legally, to treat such civilians as combatants. This is a gross misunderstanding of IHL. (Though it is much less likely to be a misunderstanding as it is to be a deliberately-contrived excuse for permitting the murder of Israeli civilians and justifying terrorism).

It also depends on an interpretation of law which extends Israel's "occupation" to the entire territory -- which is a blatant disregard of legal precepts.

As an example:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of war, Article 3.1


The idea that it is permissible to kill civilians, or attack indiscriminately in areas of civilian presence is legally ridiculous and morally reprehensible.

We cannot even define the conflict so we cannot determine what is legal or illegal.

The conflict is easy to define...
The Arab world has forced Israel to become one of the best and most powerful militarys on earth.
Feel stupid yet.

 

[Shusha]

We cannot even define the conflict so we cannot determine what is legal or illegal.

Why can't we define the conflict?

And why can't we determine what is legal or illegal?

 

[VictoriasExoticGirl]

My country recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state, and I stand with my country!

 

[Slyhunter]

My country recognizes Palestine as a sovereign state, and I stand with my country!

You go to Gaza dressed like your Avatar and see what happens.

 

[VictoriasExoticGirl]

Slyhunter I'm sure Gazans are very nice, friendly, welcoming people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

We cannot even define the conflict so we cannot determine what is legal or illegal.

Why can't we define the conflict?

And why can't we determine what is legal or illegal?

Well there are many different scenarios, but let's just look at some basics for now.

Some say that all of Palestine is occupied. Some say that only the West Bank, E. Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied while others say no to Gaza. Others say that there is no occupation.

How can we work out a solution when we can't even agree on the problem.

 

[Shusha]

We cannot even define the conflict so we cannot determine what is legal or illegal.

Why can't we define the conflict?

And why can't we determine what is legal or illegal?

Well there are many different scenarios, but let's just look at some basics for now.

Some say that all of Palestine is occupied. Some say that only the West Bank, E. Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied while others say no to Gaza. Others say that there is no occupation.

How can we work out a solution when we can't even agree on the problem.

Well, on one point we can agree. And we should, because it is legally correct. As we both know, there has NEVER been any legal division of the territory in question. Therefore, there are only two legal possibilities.

1. All of the territory is under the sovereignty of the State of Israel.

2. All of the territory is under some other legal entity.

(Since there IS no other legal entity within those borders, its obviously door #1.)


However. And this is a really BIG HOWEVER! The past is immaterial to solving the problem. Why? Because legal changes become legal through words on paper in a peace treaty. Thus anything can happen. The past, the present matters not one tiny little bit. Literally, anything can happen if the Parties simply agree to it.

ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. Whatever is written becomes the legal reality.

So what is the basic nature of the conflict? Its actually pretty easy to define. There are two distinct (from each other) cultures claiming self-determination, sovereignty and rights to the same pieces of land.

Do you agree or disagree with that as a basic conceptualization of the conflict?

 

[thetor]

Moron,

Further, it has a treaty with the government acting on behalf of the Palestinian people that a future border between Israel and Palestine will come about after permanent negotiations.

This is a truth that is always ignored. As the citizens of Palestine, the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity. As implied above, and the right under international law, the Palestinians are the only ones who can cede land or change borders. Only a treaty with Palestine can cede land or change borders. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements noted that Palestinian land and international borders remained unchanged since 1922.

So, as of 1949 Palestine and its international borders were still intact. Have there been any treaties with Palestine since 1949 that have changed that status?

While it can be shown that Israel is a state it can also be shown that there was NEVER a palestine state. Still isn't. There's a Gaza and there's semi autonomous Arab areas within Israel, but there's clearly no palestine. Partly because theres no such thing as a palestinian people. There's Syrians, Egyptians, so forth in the area, that we now most often call Jordanians but there was never any such thing as palestine or palestinians.

Israel on the other hand is a distinct piece of land with a distinct people speaking a distinct language and enjoying a distinct culture and tribal affiliation.

the Romans and others since have acknowledged the Palestinians and a Palestine,moreover even the Zionists acknowledged the Palestinians and Palestine....You Boston are a TOTAL IDIOT

 

[Linkiloo]

I knew you could't actually answer the question so I prepared this earlier...

Hamas - Terrorist Organisation

YES?

or

NO?

Choose one!

Why should I single out Hamas when there are much worse terrorists out there?

So basically you don't believe Hamas a terrorist organisation...

Pretty much sums up your thought processes!

I don't think I will bother responding to your future posts... And I cannot understand why ANYONE would bother!

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that the nationals of an occupying power are not protected person. (More commonly called civilians.)

So, where does this terrorist label come from? Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign against the Palestinians.

Well, shall we just say that it's easier to list those that do NOT consider Hamas a terrorist group....

Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Brazil, Turkey, China, Qatar and P F Tinmore.

That was easy wasn't it!

Only a handful of all the countries in the world do the terrorist name calling against Hamas. Most don't.

The EU did but their court ruled that the criteria used for that designation was bogus.

You are out of date. The EU won the appeal and the court said that the EU can continue to designate Hamas terrorist. EU court upholds Hamas terror listing

Since I live in the EU, I couldn't care less that other renegade countries don't call a spade a spade. I'm pleased that the EU does.