-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
War
- Thread starter Creeperpark
- Start date
it took them long enough, true. but still, a great idea! let the rivers flow and the salmon spawn.
how many times you gonna post this?
"18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.
19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.
20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
"18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.
19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.
20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
moose eater
Well-known member
I think a proper response to the woulda', shoulda', coulda' fantasy-based nonsense and abstraction on steroisds, with the unrelated obfuscation nature (all too typical I might add) of "What would Hamas do with israel?", is somewhere along the lines of:
What would a bullfrog do if it DID have wings?
or,
"How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
or, maybe,
If Mary sells seashells down by the seashore for $1 each, and tidal flats below high tide mark are federal turf, and Mary doesn't have a formal business license, should she face her judgement in a municipal hearing via ordinance, or a state court in response to state statute, or maybe a federal trial?
Because ALL of those are equally relevant to the legal and moral issues at hand.
What would a bullfrog do if it DID have wings?
or,
"How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
or, maybe,
If Mary sells seashells down by the seashore for $1 each, and tidal flats below high tide mark are federal turf, and Mary doesn't have a formal business license, should she face her judgement in a municipal hearing via ordinance, or a state court in response to state statute, or maybe a federal trial?
Because ALL of those are equally relevant to the legal and moral issues at hand.
Last edited:
I was thinking of a wide objective end game.
Pretend that further down the woodchuck does chuck wood....
And acquiescence has led to lots of wood being chucked...
I can understand either side's response being a mirror copy.
So Hai
Well-known member
moose eater
Well-known member
There, that wasn't difficult, was it?
So both sides, eh?
Only one side of a decades long impasse is guilty of war crimes and calling for their genocide is not hypocrisy.
it's not a "genocide" to dismantle an illegal state guilty of occupation, genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and being fascist ghouls. there is no both sides. israel started this in 1948 when it ethnically cleansed a million people, stole their land and forced their descendents to live in gaza with no right of return or to leave gaza.
palestinians have a right to self defense.
war crimes have been committed by both parties. this isn't hypocrisy.
palestinians have a right to self defense.
war crimes have been committed by both parties. this isn't hypocrisy.
