They are terrorists who choose to target Jews. But it's refreshing that unlike franky, you're okay admitting you are okay with Jews being killed.
Hamas releases 3 hostages amid uncertainty over ceasefire deal
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
Holy shit your justifications are disgusting.
Are you really saying it's okay for Hamas to kidnap and murder a bunch of civilians because Israel dare prosecute terrorists?
So you're okay with Indigenous people murdering you? Just another idiotic double standard to justify your abhorrent world view.
Say the guy who claims the ICC/ICJ/UN/Amnesty... criticisms of Hamas are Jewish lies.
The racists defense. I know you just repeated that you think Palestinians are disgusting but a normal person who actually wants peace would be critical of Palestinian leadership rejecting peace deals but despite you pretending that you support Two States, you keep arguing that Palestinians are right to reject the concept.
Yet you quote her all the time.
But that is a pathetic attempt to defend your claims of 'slander', even for you. I gave you the exact post where she claimed the "Jewish Lobby has subjugated America" but all you can do is run away, simply because you are afraid to publicly admit you believe her racist conspiracy theory.
What ChatGPT thinks of Ziontology
www.instagram.com
Hadar Cohen on Instagram: "Damn ChatGPT, brilliant analysis of Zionism as psychopathology 🤖🙏🏽"
3,302 likes, 238 comments - hadarcohen32 on February 17, 2025: "Damn ChatGPT, brilliant analysis of Zionism as psychopathology 🤖🙏🏽".
www.instagram.com
Good things are worth waiting for.
Seeing as they were never posted, no one has seen them.
OK.
That is your claim. You've presented no documented laws stating that that is the case. A ruling by a court is predicated on whether a particular codified law has been broken or not. Nobody has shown us this law. That is what I'm asking for. Fran presented the Geneva Convention, but as far as I can tell the Geneva convention does not mention if an occupying force is entitled to self-defense. If I am mistaken, please point out exactly where it is mentioned including section, page number and clause number so it can be cross referenced. Your sources are not trustworthy. Without that, you are simply making things up to support your agenda.
To repeat myself, they are declaring war, not self-defense. And that war is not against any territory. It is against an organization and a terrorist one at that, hamas. Can you please show us on a map the territory named hamas? Didn't think so.
That has not been what I've been debating. I have solely focussed my comments on Israel's right to self-defense and how far that extends. This paragraph of yours is not relevant to the debate on self-defense..
Common sense tells us that it is not correct to kill. Regardless, murder is defined and codified in all jurisdictions around the world. A country's right to defend itself whether they are an occupying force or not is not defined or codified anywhere.
Based on what recognized international law. For the umpteenth time, show us the law. Are you going to give us another opinion piece from a hate site rag like Mondoweiss again claiming that that was an actual international statute? That was such a lame attempt. You shouldn't debase yourself like that using such fake and biased sources.
Total bullshit, shack.
In Canada if you kill a burglar you go to jail.
The Geneva Conventions says you can't claim self defence when you are the occupying power.
Its like if addie moves into your house and then attacks you when you visit, he can't claim self defence.
You don't get to claim self defence for defending stolen land or properity.
Nor can you claim self defence against the refugees you are illegally occupying.
If Israel wasn't occupying Palestine Hamas would not have attacked on Oct 7.
Blame Israel.
If you don't want Palestinians to legally resist the illegal occupation, end the occupation.
Stop trying to blame the victims.
Loading…
www.cnn.com
What does that have to do with what happens in war?
Then why have you not been able to show where the Geneva Convention actually says that. That's all I'm asking for along with what section it is in, what part of that section and the page number where it says that so that it can be cross referenced? It seems that this is the part where you are struggling. It shouldn't be this difficult if that's what the GC says.
This may be the 1st time that hamas have been referred to as refugees. That's funny.
Conjecture.
But you continue to justify terror even though, in the past, you've said, without qualification, that you condemn terror.
Don’t debase yourself again by playing dumb. Everybody can see the legal prohibition along with citations. You are doing your abysmal best in avoiding the text that cites the legal reasons. Just address it. But, this constant trolling from you where you pretend not to see things needs to end.
Remember, as you constantly bleat, unless you can disprove it, you accept it. And none of us has seen you disprove any of the legal citations referred to. You‘ve got courts listed and the dates of the court hearings and the court conclusions. Are you saying that you haven’t bothered to look or you did and now you want to obfuscate?
‘The UN Charter, a treaty binding on all member states, codifies key rights and responsibilities of states. Among these are the duty to respect the self-determination of peoples (including the Palestinians), the duty to respect human rights, and the duty to refrain from the use of force against other states (where not authorized by the Security Council). Israel, for the 76 years of its existence, has been repeatedly in breach of these principles.
A temporary exception to the prohibition on the use of force is codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter for self-defense from external attacks. But importantly, no such right exists where the threat emanates from inside the territory controlled by the state. This principle was affirmed by the World Court in its 2004 opinion on Israel’s apartheid wall. And the Court found then, and again in its 2024 opinion on the occupation, that Israel is the occupying power across the occupied Palestinian territory. Thus, Israel, as the occupying power, cannot claim self-defense as a justification for launching military attacks in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights.
Of course, Israel, from within its own territory, can lawfully repel any attacks to protect its civilians, but it cannot claim self-defense to wage war against the territories it occupies. In fact, its principal obligation is to protect the occupied population. In doing so, an occupying power can undertake essential law enforcement functions (as distinct from military operations). But, given that the World Court has subsequently found that Israel’s occupation of the territories is itself entirely unlawful, even those functions would likely be illegitimate, except as strictly necessary to protect the occupied population and within a short timeline of withdrawal.
In its most recent opinion, the Court has declared that Israel’s presence in the territories violates the principle of self-determination, the rule of non-acquisition of territory by force, and the human rights of the Palestinian people and that it must quickly end its presence and compensate the Palestinian people for losses suffered. As a matter of law, every Israeli boot on the ground, every Israeli missile, jet, or drone in Palestinian air space, and even a single unauthorized Israeli bicycle on a Palestinian road, is a breach of international law.
In sum, Israel’s lawful remedy for threats that it alleges emanate from the occupied territories is to end its unlawful occupation, dismantle the settlements, leave the territories, remove the siege, and fully relinquish control to the occupied Palestinian people.
Here, international law is a simple reflection of common sense and universal morality. A criminal cannot take over someone’s home, move in, loot its contents, imprison and brutalize the inhabitants, and then claim self-defense to murder the homeowners when they fight back. ‘
Last edited:
Its not a war, its a genocide against 2 million people, 75% who are refugees, living in a giant concentration camp.
You are still trying to argue that genocide is self defence and therefore Israel is just and noble for killing people. You seem to think that just because there are ICC warrants on Netanyahu and Gallant and the ICJ case for genocide proceeding, that Israel has not committed any war crimes.
Oh look, you are once again referring to all Palestinians as 'Hamas', despite 50% of Gaza being children and 75% being refugees.
Looks like I was correct in my view that you believe 100% of Palestinians should die, now bolstered by the fact that you label them all 'Hamas'.
You are the supporter of terrorism here, not me.
There were 1,800 state backed terrorist attacks reported during the genocide.
Israelis commit far more acts of terrorism than Palestinians.
Do you denounce terrorism or are you the boards biggest supporter of terrrorism?
You have produced no citation of any such law. If there was such a law why did you quote Mondoweiss, a hate site?
Article 51:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
There is no mention of location.
Regardless, hamas is an organization, not a territory. Israel cannot be internal or external to the borders of an organization.
Last edited:
Palestine is a member of the UN and is under attack and occupation by Israel.
You've got it the wrong way around again.
Like Ukraine, Palestine has the right to self defence and neither Russia nor Israel can claim self defence invading and occupying other countries.
That is an illogical statement and means nothing. By that logic WWII wasn't a war since there was genocide/Holocaust?
As well, the UNGA has not declared a genocide. They have passed no such resolution
Last edited:
