Israel–Hamas War: 10/7/2023 - Present

[Nkrumah Was Right]

From the "river to the sea" is generally not used the way you wrote it. If you just want to ask me how I feel about ethnic cleansing feel free to do that.

I think ethnic cleansing is wrong.

Please quote me the international law you're referencing.

1 - I know Palestinian activists who’ve been in the struggle a long time. You’re wrong.

2 - Doesn’t sound like you think ethnic cleansing is wrong if you have no issue with Israel’s existence

3 - Check out UN General Assembly Resolutions 194, 242, 3236, UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Refugee Convention this week

 

[ReasonableMatic]

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

I never made it a party issue. I literally said that the results would be the same regardless who was in office...literally said that at least 5 times.

And the conversation was about the use of the phase and it's many different intents. It can be a hateful statement or an inspiring statement depending on who makes it. Idk why you posted a map but literally never addressed the history of the statement.

So ya...

I mean, if you want to argue things I actually said...cool. But you creating a narrative to create an argument weird. Lol

Zionist babble

 

[ReasonableMatic]

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

1 - I know Palestinian activists who’ve been in the struggle a long time. You’re wrong.

2 - Doesn’t sound like you think ethnic cleansing is wrong if you have no issue with Israel’s existence

3 - Check out UN General Assembly Resolutions 194, 242, 3236, UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Refugee Convention this week

1. Wrong about?

2. Please quote me saying I support the existence of Israel.

3. I did look into it and this is what I found. Seems like the negotiation have been attempted. However part of that agreement is that the Palestinians have to agree to be peaceful and not continue to war to return which their leaders have refused to agree to.

"The issue of the Palestinian refugees was the major obstacle in the negotiations. According to Cohen, "The Arab delegates were not inclined to take
notice of Israel's declared willingness to repatriate 100,000 refugees, claiming that
so long as the refugee problem in its entirety was not solved in accordance with the [United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194], there could be no negotiations for peace.'' 92 Resolution 194 states that those refugees who wished to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be enabled to return at the earliest possible date. 193 However, the Arab delegations insisted on the return of the refugees to Israel, but refused to give any guarantees to Israel that they would discard their policy of eternal hostility and their preparations for a "second round" against Israel.

Meanwhile, the Israeli delegates expressed a willingness to discuss the refugee problem, but maintained that it could be solved only within the framework of a general peace agreement.194

Furthermore, it appeared that the Arab states used the refugee issue as a
bargaining card. Not only did the Arab delegations at the Lausanne Conference
reject Israel's declaration to take back 100,000 refugees without serious
consideration, but they also displayed anger toward the Palestinian refugees, who became a pawn in the intra-Arab political game"

Here is the link if anyone would like to read the report

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/659205/29_18ArizJIntlCompL_979_2001.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&ved=2ahUKEwj2iO2lyKyCAxWGl2oFHezNCow4ChAWegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Umj9DHn4uojqmaw1VTHGI

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

Zionist babble

Oh I see. You have run out of people to troll and clown around with so you just decide to clown around me.

You must be bored. Yeah Imma just block you and keep it pushing.

 

[Cuban Pete]

Posters in this thread were saying this same exact video was the result of Hamas using snipers to fire on Gazans to keep them as human shields and prevent them from moving south

 

[Traveler]

1. Wrong about?

2. Please quote me saying I support the existence of Israel.

3. I did look into it and this is what I found. Seems like the negotiation have been attempted. However part of that agreement is that the Palestinians have to agree to be peaceful and not continue to war to return which their leaders have refused to agree to.

"The issue of the Palestinian refugees was the major obstacle in the negotiations. According to Cohen, "The Arab delegates were not inclined to take
notice of Israel's declared willingness to repatriate 100,000 refugees, claiming that
so long as the refugee problem in its entirety was not solved in accordance with the [United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194], there could be no negotiations for peace.'' 92 Resolution 194 states that those refugees who wished to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be enabled to return at the earliest possible date. 193 However, the Arab delegations insisted on the return of the refugees to Israel, but refused to give any guarantees to Israel that they would discard their policy of eternal hostility and their preparations for a "second round" against Israel.

Meanwhile, the Israeli delegates expressed a willingness to discuss the refugee problem, but maintained that it could be solved only within the framework of a general peace agreement.194

Furthermore, it appeared that the Arab states used the refugee issue as a
bargaining card. Not only did the Arab delegations at the Lausanne Conference
reject Israel's declaration to take back 100,000 refugees without serious
consideration, but they also displayed anger toward the Palestinian refugees, who became a pawn in the intra-Arab political game"

Here is the link if anyone would like to read the report

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/659205/29_18ArizJIntlCompL_979_2001.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&ved=2ahUKEwj2iO2lyKyCAxWGl2oFHezNCow4ChAWegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Umj9DHn4uojqmaw1VTHGI

He won't give you the article of the Geneva convention because he knows it doesn't support his argument. Israel followed article 19 by telling the hospital to evacuate satisfying their obligation. You can't build a military HQ under a hospital period. Hamas doing that nlified the hospitals protection.

I was actually surprised one poster earlier in the thread said the truth "of course they build under hospitals otherwise they would be bombed to oblivion".

 

[Blackgate]

why does the us and the so called civilized western world condemn the taliban for restricting human rights in afghanistan but wont condemn israel for restricting the human rights of palestinians?

 

[Buddy]

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

He won't give you the article of the Geneva convention because he knows it doesn't support his argument. Israel followed article 19 by telling the hospital to evacuate satisfying their obligation. You can't build a military HQ under a hospital period. Hamas doing that nlified the hospitals protection.

I was actually surprised one poster earlier in the thread said the truth "of course they build under hospitals otherwise they would be bombed to oblivion".

Right he's a troll. Israel has been, at least in some regards and/at least on the surface level, been following international protocol. Hamas has not...not even trying.

But I won't support either side because

1. The USA went ham after 9/11. It would be hypocritical to condemn Israel when I very vividly remember the trama the US faced and the war and carnage that was reaped afterwards. The majority of Americans support it especially initially.

2. I don't support colonialism, genocide, etc. I think that speaks for itself. The Palestinians deserve to live in peace and safety.

My main interest concerns how this will affect American citizens. Outside of that, I hope for a ceasefire and a 2 state solution or whatever solution stops the deaths of innocent people.

 

[jj23]

Right he's a troll. Israel has been, at least in some regards and/at least on the surface level, been following international protocol. Hamas has not...not even trying.

But I won't support either side because

1. The USA went ham after 9/11. It would be hypocritical to condemn Israel when I very vividly remember the trama the US faced and the war and carnage that was reaped afterwards. The majority of Americans support it especially initially.

2. I don't support colonialism, genocide, etc. I think that speaks for itself. The Palestinians deserve to live in peace and safety.

My main interest concerns how this will affect American citizens. Outside of that, I hope for a ceasefire and a 2 state solution or whatever solution stops the deaths of innocent people.

See that isn't true. Israel has been encroaching on territory in Gaza for decades now, despite being told it's illegal by the international community.

Hamas responds with terror because they are punching up. I dont agree with killing innocent people, but you can't consider a lifetime of apartheid and automatically assume Hamas is the only culprit.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Israel created Hamas, much like the South African Apartheid government forced the ANC into what many considered to be terrorism, back in the day.

Also, at the end of the day, let's assume a terrorist tunnel is somewhere under a hospital. The hospital can do nothing about it. They were there before Hamas. Their primary objective is saving lives in the Gaza. To decide you will let those people die to maybe hit a Hamas tunnel is wickedness no matter how you cut it.

Also yes, the US went ham after 9/11. Instead of righteous revenge, lies were told to the world that resulted in many innocent lives being lost. Should we shrug our should and be happy with that? The ends don't always justify the means.

 

[ReasonableMatic]

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

He won't give you the article of the Geneva convention because he knows it doesn't support his argument. Israel followed article 19 by telling the hospital to evacuate satisfying their obligation. You can't build a military HQ under a hospital period. Hamas doing that nlified the hospitals protection.

I was actually surprised one poster earlier in the thread said the truth "of course they build under hospitals otherwise they would be bombed to oblivion".

Geneva Convention is on warfare. I’m citing refugee statutes.

You Zionists are so illiterate. I didn’t cite the Geneva Convention but other international law statutes

 

[Peak]

lsrael’s minister of Heritage spilled the beans, so he had to go

Not surprised