Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jordan/Palestine wouldn't have lost the land if it didn't attack Israel in 1967 for the purpose of annihilating it.
I doesn't get a redo now.
That's absurd.P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, I disagree.
This is just some foolishness to justify their unlawful action by Palestinians.
(COMMENT)Palestine is not at war with any of its neighbors.
Show some proof that it is.
Why negotiate if there is no war and no border disputes?
From a practical aspect, firing rockets and mortars across the border into sovereign territory of Israel is an act of aggression. While the Arab Palestinian may not recognize the "JIHAD" as a war, it is a war with real casualties. It is the political policy of the Arab Palestinians to eject the State of Israel, recognized since 1948, even though the PLO exchanged letter of Mutual Recognition.
As I have said before, this pledge of conflict has gone essential unchanged for more nearly seven decades (made in February 1948) and is mimicked in Palestinian National Charter (1968), the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (1988), and more recently in a 2013 major position paper, published by Khaled Meshal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau(currently hiding out on Doha, Qatar).
If there is no dispute, then why fire rockets and mortars at Israel?
You don't know how unreliable and impractical you sound when you suggest there is "no war."
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.
Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
Most Respectfully,
RAgain, I disagree.
No surprise, you do not believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
There have been no Jews in Gaza for nine years.
The Gaza government started the was by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
They rejected almost every cease fire offer.
This is solely on the heads of the arab government in gaza.
Oh? What attacks specifically?That's absurd.P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, I disagree.
This is just some foolishness to justify their unlawful action by Palestinians.
(COMMENT)Palestine is not at war with any of its neighbors.
Show some proof that it is.
Why negotiate if there is no war and no border disputes?
From a practical aspect, firing rockets and mortars across the border into sovereign territory of Israel is an act of aggression. While the Arab Palestinian may not recognize the "JIHAD" as a war, it is a war with real casualties. It is the political policy of the Arab Palestinians to eject the State of Israel, recognized since 1948, even though the PLO exchanged letter of Mutual Recognition.
As I have said before, this pledge of conflict has gone essential unchanged for more nearly seven decades (made in February 1948) and is mimicked in Palestinian National Charter (1968), the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (1988), and more recently in a 2013 major position paper, published by Khaled Meshal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau(currently hiding out on Doha, Qatar).
If there is no dispute, then why fire rockets and mortars at Israel?
You don't know how unreliable and impractical you sound when you suggest there is "no war."
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.
Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
Most Respectfully,
RAgain, I disagree.
No surprise, you do not believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
There have been no Jews in Gaza for nine years.
The Gaza government started the was by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
They rejected almost every cease fire offer.
This is solely on the heads of the arab government in gaza.
Bullshit. The Israelis have started every engagement. All rockets from Gaza were in retaliation to israeli attacks. The Israelis broke every ceasefire.
Many US media reports were quick to declare that two suicide bombings in Israel on September 18 and 19, in which eight Israelis were killed, had brought an end to a period of “calm” simply because there had been no similar attacks for six weeks and few Israelis had been victims of Palestinian violence.That's absurd.P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, I disagree.
This is just some foolishness to justify their unlawful action by Palestinians.
(COMMENT)Palestine is not at war with any of its neighbors.
Show some proof that it is.
Why negotiate if there is no war and no border disputes?
From a practical aspect, firing rockets and mortars across the border into sovereign territory of Israel is an act of aggression. While the Arab Palestinian may not recognize the "JIHAD" as a war, it is a war with real casualties. It is the political policy of the Arab Palestinians to eject the State of Israel, recognized since 1948, even though the PLO exchanged letter of Mutual Recognition.
As I have said before, this pledge of conflict has gone essential unchanged for more nearly seven decades (made in February 1948) and is mimicked in Palestinian National Charter (1968), the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (1988), and more recently in a 2013 major position paper, published by Khaled Meshal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau(currently hiding out on Doha, Qatar).
If there is no dispute, then why fire rockets and mortars at Israel?
You don't know how unreliable and impractical you sound when you suggest there is "no war."
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.
Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
Most Respectfully,
RAgain, I disagree.
No surprise, you do not believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
There have been no Jews in Gaza for nine years.
The Gaza government started the was by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
They rejected almost every cease fire offer.
This is solely on the heads of the arab government in gaza.
Bullshit. The Israelis have started every engagement. All rockets from Gaza were in retaliation to israeli attacks. The Israelis broke every ceasefire.
Excellent question I am just finishing a book on the 1967 war. Great book by Michael Oren.Jordan/Palestine wouldn't have lost the land if it didn't attack Israel in 1967 for the purpose of annihilating it.
I doesn't get a redo now.
How can that be, the Israelis started the 1967 war. From the CIA website.
"Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
"Electronic Intifada" is not a legitimate source.Many US media reports were quick to declare that two suicide bombings in Israel on September 18 and 19, in which eight Israelis were killed, had brought an end to a period of “calm” simply because there had been no similar attacks for six weeks and few Israelis had been victims of Palestinian violence.That's absurd.P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, I disagree.
This is just some foolishness to justify their unlawful action by Palestinians.
(COMMENT)Palestine is not at war with any of its neighbors.
Show some proof that it is.
Why negotiate if there is no war and no border disputes?
From a practical aspect, firing rockets and mortars across the border into sovereign territory of Israel is an act of aggression. While the Arab Palestinian may not recognize the "JIHAD" as a war, it is a war with real casualties. It is the political policy of the Arab Palestinians to eject the State of Israel, recognized since 1948, even though the PLO exchanged letter of Mutual Recognition.
As I have said before, this pledge of conflict has gone essential unchanged for more nearly seven decades (made in February 1948) and is mimicked in Palestinian National Charter (1968), the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (1988), and more recently in a 2013 major position paper, published by Khaled Meshal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau(currently hiding out on Doha, Qatar).
If there is no dispute, then why fire rockets and mortars at Israel?
You don't know how unreliable and impractical you sound when you suggest there is "no war."
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.
Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
Most Respectfully,
RAgain, I disagree.
No surprise, you do not believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
There have been no Jews in Gaza for nine years.
The Gaza government started the was by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
They rejected almost every cease fire offer.
This is solely on the heads of the arab government in gaza.
Bullshit. The Israelis have started every engagement. All rockets from Gaza were in retaliation to israeli attacks. The Israelis broke every ceasefire.
In fact, the bombings came at the end of a particularly bloody period in which dozens of Palestinians, most of them unarmed civilians, and a large number of them children, had been killed and injured by Israeli occupation forces. In effect, the definition of “calm” or a “lull in violence” inherent in these reports is ‘only Palestinians are being killed.’
Killings of dozens once again called period of calm by US media The Electronic Intifada
Excellent question I am just finishing a book on the 1967 war. Great book by Michael Oren.Jordan/Palestine wouldn't have lost the land if it didn't attack Israel in 1967 for the purpose of annihilating it.
I doesn't get a redo now.
How can that be, the Israelis started the 1967 war. From the CIA website.
"Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
Nassar blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israel which within itself was an act of war.
There were daily incursions attacking Israel.
Nassar was amasssing Egyptian troops on the border.
And Nasser was threatening repeatedly that he will annihilate Israel.
However if we are talking about Jordan and the West Bank. Israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of the war.
King Hussein of Jordan attacked Israel. In the course of it, Jordan lost the West Bank, and their hold on Jerusalem.
Also, Syria was shooting artillery at Israeli Kibbutizim without Israel even engaging with Syria. Syria wouldn't stop so they lost the Golan Heights.
Seems like he should have taken Israel's advice and stayed out of it.
Indeed, the only "legitimate sources" suck Israel's dick."Electronic Intifada" is not a legitimate source.Many US media reports were quick to declare that two suicide bombings in Israel on September 18 and 19, in which eight Israelis were killed, had brought an end to a period of “calm” simply because there had been no similar attacks for six weeks and few Israelis had been victims of Palestinian violence.That's absurd.P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, I disagree.
This is just some foolishness to justify their unlawful action by Palestinians.
(COMMENT)
From a practical aspect, firing rockets and mortars across the border into sovereign territory of Israel is an act of aggression. While the Arab Palestinian may not recognize the "JIHAD" as a war, it is a war with real casualties. It is the political policy of the Arab Palestinians to eject the State of Israel, recognized since 1948, even though the PLO exchanged letter of Mutual Recognition.
As I have said before, this pledge of conflict has gone essential unchanged for more nearly seven decades (made in February 1948) and is mimicked in Palestinian National Charter (1968), the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (1988), and more recently in a 2013 major position paper, published by Khaled Meshal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau(currently hiding out on Doha, Qatar).
If there is no dispute, then why fire rockets and mortars at Israel?
You don't know how unreliable and impractical you sound when you suggest there is "no war."
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.
Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
Most Respectfully,
RAgain, I disagree.
No surprise, you do not believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
There have been no Jews in Gaza for nine years.
The Gaza government started the was by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
They rejected almost every cease fire offer.
This is solely on the heads of the arab government in gaza.
Bullshit. The Israelis have started every engagement. All rockets from Gaza were in retaliation to israeli attacks. The Israelis broke every ceasefire.
In fact, the bombings came at the end of a particularly bloody period in which dozens of Palestinians, most of them unarmed civilians, and a large number of them children, had been killed and injured by Israeli occupation forces. In effect, the definition of “calm” or a “lull in violence” inherent in these reports is ‘only Palestinians are being killed.’
Killings of dozens once again called period of calm by US media The Electronic Intifada
Michael OrenExcellent question I am just finishing a book on the 1967 war. Great book by Michael Oren.Jordan/Palestine wouldn't have lost the land if it didn't attack Israel in 1967 for the purpose of annihilating it.
I doesn't get a redo now.
How can that be, the Israelis started the 1967 war. From the CIA website.
"Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
Nassar blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israel which within itself was an act of war.
There were daily incursions attacking Israel.
Nassar was amasssing Egyptian troops on the border.
And Nasser was threatening repeatedly that he will annihilate Israel.
However if we are talking about Jordan and the West Bank. Israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of the war.
King Hussein of Jordan attacked Israel. In the course of it, Jordan lost the West Bank, and their hold on Jerusalem.
Also, Syria was shooting artillery at Israeli Kibbutizim without Israel even engaging with Syria. Syria wouldn't stop so they lost the Golan Heights.
Seems like he should have taken Israel's advice and stayed out of it.
My (everyone that is not a Zionist propagandist) contention is that Gaza is densely populated and as stated by neutral news media, the Palestinian militias do not use human shields. Anyone that claims that the BBC is biased is certainly a Hasbara operative. If anything BBC is biased in support of Israel.
The Palestinians are defending themselves. There had been no rockets fired by the Palestinians since 2012 before the Palestinians retaliated against Israeli air raids.
"6) This current Gaza conflict began with Hamas rocket fire on 30 June 2014
Times of Israel: "Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state, according to Israeli defense officials.. The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.. Hamas hasn't fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012." The Nation: "During ten days of Operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank [before the start of the Gaza conflict], Israel arrested approximately 800 Palestinians without charge or trial, killed nine civilians and raided nearly 1,300 residential, commercial and public buildings. Its military operation targeted Hamas members released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in 2011."
Debunking Israel s 11 Main Myths About Gaza Hamas and War Crimes Mehdi Hasan
Are you saying Col Kemp is lying? That we should accept to opinion of Mehdi Hassan? You are kidding, right? I will grant that it is extremely difficult to catch Hamas at work as rational people don't want to become their next victim but before they quickly and quietly slipped out of Gaza, an Indian TV crew managed to film a Hamas rocket launched from beneath their hotel window. Furthermore, UNRWA was forced to admit (very reluctantly) that UN "schools" were used by Hamas as armories. You and Hassan can deny or otherwise avoid the truth but it is still the truth.
He is saying that Google maps are lying and that the images shown are those planted by hasbara propagandists to fool the world.
See here Google Maps
Does he believe there is anything except 'hasbara' propaganda that does not promote hate of Israel, jews or the west?
Indeed, the only "legitimate sources" suck Israel's dick."Electronic Intifada" is not a legitimate source.Many US media reports were quick to declare that two suicide bombings in Israel on September 18 and 19, in which eight Israelis were killed, had brought an end to a period of “calm” simply because there had been no similar attacks for six weeks and few Israelis had been victims of Palestinian violence.That's absurd.Again, I disagree.
No surprise, you do not believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
There have been no Jews in Gaza for nine years.
The Gaza government started the was by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
They rejected almost every cease fire offer.
This is solely on the heads of the arab government in gaza.
Bullshit. The Israelis have started every engagement. All rockets from Gaza were in retaliation to israeli attacks. The Israelis broke every ceasefire.
In fact, the bombings came at the end of a particularly bloody period in which dozens of Palestinians, most of them unarmed civilians, and a large number of them children, had been killed and injured by Israeli occupation forces. In effect, the definition of “calm” or a “lull in violence” inherent in these reports is ‘only Palestinians are being killed.’
Killings of dozens once again called period of calm by US media The Electronic Intifada
Israel isn't a neighbor. There are no borders or border disputes.Palestine is not at war with any of its neighbors.Negotiate peace with whom? They are not at war with any of their neighbors.Two treaties that have stood the test of time with Jordan and Egypt. Now what have the Palestinians ever negotiated ?
Tell that to Jordan, Egypt and Israel who they are constantly at war with. And your LIEs no longer work as Palestine still has no borders according to the UN. By the way I did not mention peace I mentioned negotiations honoured by Palestine, kithman and taqiya
Show some proof that it is.
Why negotiate if there is no war and no border disputes?
1948 the arab league declared war on Israel, part of the arab league was the Palestinians that later became Jordanian and Egyptian. The hamas charter says that they are at war with Israel and your attempts at re-writing reality are failing every time
Israel is defined by armistice lines that are specifically not the be political or territorial borders. The UN does not recognize those borders. Israel does not recognize those borders.Why does every map in the world show Israel inside fake borders?Palestine is not at war with any of its neighbors.Tell that to Jordan, Egypt and Israel who they are constantly at war with. And your LIEs no longer work as Palestine still has no borders according to the UN. By the way I did not mention peace I mentioned negotiations honoured by Palestine, kithman and taqiya
Show some proof that it is.
Why negotiate if there is no war and no border disputes?
Just because YOU don't recognize Israel, doesn't mean it's not there. 'Palestine' is at war with Israel and yes, they are neighbours.
Palestine is the orange. What's so hard to understand ? A 3rd grader could comprehend this.
Which authorative body says that they are fake, as in the UN who says they are valid. They are the same borders granted under the mandate in 1923 as the extent of the Jewish National Home.
The armistice lines are not just around Gaza and the West Bank. The armistice lines also follow the international borders between Palestine and its neighbors. (except for some areas of occupation) These armistice lines did not change any international borders. None of these borders are disputed.
Israel is 100% inside armistice lines that are not borders.
How does anyone or any nation even begin to negotiate peace with a people who prefer death over life?
Well, it seems that Zionists threaten with the death of our entire planet, if their regime is in danger:
Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch(2003) as saying:
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan:
'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.'
I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third.
We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[30]
Samson Option - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
How can you negotiate with people who have chosen to behave like "mad dogs"?
How can you negotiate with people who threaten to destroy the entire planet?
Jordan/Palestine wouldn't have lost the land if it didn't attack Israel in 1967 for the purpose of annihilating it.
I doesn't get a redo now.
How can that be, the Israelis started the 1967 war. From the CIA website.
"Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
That's absurd.P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, I disagree.
This is just some foolishness to justify their unlawful action by Palestinians.
(COMMENT)Palestine is not at war with any of its neighbors.
Show some proof that it is.
Why negotiate if there is no war and no border disputes?
From a practical aspect, firing rockets and mortars across the border into sovereign territory of Israel is an act of aggression. While the Arab Palestinian may not recognize the "JIHAD" as a war, it is a war with real casualties. It is the political policy of the Arab Palestinians to eject the State of Israel, recognized since 1948, even though the PLO exchanged letter of Mutual Recognition.
As I have said before, this pledge of conflict has gone essential unchanged for more nearly seven decades (made in February 1948) and is mimicked in Palestinian National Charter (1968), the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (1988), and more recently in a 2013 major position paper, published by Khaled Meshal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau(currently hiding out on Doha, Qatar).
If there is no dispute, then why fire rockets and mortars at Israel?
You don't know how unreliable and impractical you sound when you suggest there is "no war."
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.
Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
Most Respectfully,
RAgain, I disagree.
No surprise, you do not believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
There have been no Jews in Gaza for nine years.
The Gaza government started the was by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
They rejected almost every cease fire offer.
This is solely on the heads of the arab government in gaza.
Bullshit. The Israelis have started every engagement. All rockets from Gaza were in retaliation to israeli attacks. The Israelis broke every ceasefire.
Many US media reports were quick to declare that two suicide bombings in Israel on September 18 and 19, in which eight Israelis were killed, had brought an end to a period of “calm” simply because there had been no similar attacks for six weeks and few Israelis had been victims of Palestinian violence.That's absurd.P F Tinmore, et al,
Again, I disagree.
This is just some foolishness to justify their unlawful action by Palestinians.
(COMMENT)Palestine is not at war with any of its neighbors.
Show some proof that it is.
Why negotiate if there is no war and no border disputes?
From a practical aspect, firing rockets and mortars across the border into sovereign territory of Israel is an act of aggression. While the Arab Palestinian may not recognize the "JIHAD" as a war, it is a war with real casualties. It is the political policy of the Arab Palestinians to eject the State of Israel, recognized since 1948, even though the PLO exchanged letter of Mutual Recognition.
As I have said before, this pledge of conflict has gone essential unchanged for more nearly seven decades (made in February 1948) and is mimicked in Palestinian National Charter (1968), the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (1988), and more recently in a 2013 major position paper, published by Khaled Meshal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau(currently hiding out on Doha, Qatar).
If there is no dispute, then why fire rockets and mortars at Israel?
You don't know how unreliable and impractical you sound when you suggest there is "no war."
Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.
Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
Most Respectfully,
RAgain, I disagree.
No surprise, you do not believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
There have been no Jews in Gaza for nine years.
The Gaza government started the was by firing thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.
They rejected almost every cease fire offer.
This is solely on the heads of the arab government in gaza.
Bullshit. The Israelis have started every engagement. All rockets from Gaza were in retaliation to israeli attacks. The Israelis broke every ceasefire.
In fact, the bombings came at the end of a particularly bloody period in which dozens of Palestinians, most of them unarmed civilians, and a large number of them children, had been killed and injured by Israeli occupation forces. In effect, the definition of “calm” or a “lull in violence” inherent in these reports is ‘only Palestinians are being killed.’
Killings of dozens once again called period of calm by US media The Electronic Intifada
Excellent question I am just finishing a book on the 1967 war. Great book by Michael Oren.Jordan/Palestine wouldn't have lost the land if it didn't attack Israel in 1967 for the purpose of annihilating it.
I doesn't get a redo now.
How can that be, the Israelis started the 1967 war. From the CIA website.
"Helms was awakened at 3:00 in the morning on 5 June by a call from the CIA Operations Center. The Foreign Broadcast Information Service had picked up reports that Israel had launched its attack. (OCI soon concluded that the Israelis— contrary to their claims—had fired first.) "
CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Central Intelligence Agency
Nassar blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israel which within itself was an act of war.
There were daily incursions attacking Israel.
Nassar was amasssing Egyptian troops on the border.
And Nasser was threatening repeatedly that he will annihilate Israel.
However if we are talking about Jordan and the West Bank. Israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of the war.
King Hussein of Jordan attacked Israel. In the course of it, Jordan lost the West Bank, and their hold on Jerusalem.
Also, Syria was shooting artillery at Israeli Kibbutizim without Israel even engaging with Syria. Syria wouldn't stop so they lost the Golan Heights.
Seems like he should have taken Israel's advice and stayed out of it.
Michael Oren, you mean the American born US citizen that decided to become an Israeli citizen. As an American, I don't like people that prefer to become citizens of foreign countries. Nor do I believe anything that turncoats write.
Article 53.Israel is defined by armistice lines that are specifically not the be political or territorial borders. The UN does not recognize those borders. Israel does not recognize those borders.Why does every map in the world show Israel inside fake borders?Palestine is not at war with any of its neighbors.
Show some proof that it is.
Why negotiate if there is no war and no border disputes?
Just because YOU don't recognize Israel, doesn't mean it's not there. 'Palestine' is at war with Israel and yes, they are neighbours.
Palestine is the orange. What's so hard to understand ? A 3rd grader could comprehend this.
Which authorative body says that they are fake, as in the UN who says they are valid. They are the same borders granted under the mandate in 1923 as the extent of the Jewish National Home.
The armistice lines are not just around Gaza and the West Bank. The armistice lines also follow the international borders between Palestine and its neighbors. (except for some areas of occupation) These armistice lines did not change any international borders. None of these borders are disputed.
Israel is 100% inside armistice lines that are not borders.
So what about the negotiated borders with Egypt and Jordan that put Palestine inside Israel
Article 53.Israel is defined by armistice lines that are specifically not the be political or territorial borders. The UN does not recognize those borders. Israel does not recognize those borders.Why does every map in the world show Israel inside fake borders?Just because YOU don't recognize Israel, doesn't mean it's not there. 'Palestine' is at war with Israel and yes, they are neighbours.
Palestine is the orange. What's so hard to understand ? A 3rd grader could comprehend this.
Which authorative body says that they are fake, as in the UN who says they are valid. They are the same borders granted under the mandate in 1923 as the extent of the Jewish National Home.
The armistice lines are not just around Gaza and the West Bank. The armistice lines also follow the international borders between Palestine and its neighbors. (except for some areas of occupation) These armistice lines did not change any international borders. None of these borders are disputed.
Israel is 100% inside armistice lines that are not borders.
So what about the negotiated borders with Egypt and Jordan that put Palestine inside Israel
TREATIES CONFLICTING WITH A PEREMPTORY NORM OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW ("JUS COGENS")
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 1155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf
