They really need to be expelled from the UN and a global boycott must be put on them.
Hamas releases 3 hostages amid uncertainty over ceasefire deal
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
Outrageous and despicable. IMHO the Israeli genocide is worse then the Holocaust. At least that happened in the context of a world war and information was not readily available. Here we are with only slightly delayed videos of the most horrific depravities and it took DONALD TRUMP to stop the killing (or at least slow it to a trickle) inspite of his absurd statements on the future I will give him credit for that for now depending on how it unfolds.
With your description, maybe hamas deserves a humanitarian award.
It was probably more like "let's take the babies with us so we can watch them die in front of our eyes and then we can still use them as bargaining chips".
Every accusation is a confession.
These kind of thoughts only appear in the minds of very few.
That has as much chance as hamas renouncing terrorism, holding free and open elections and saying that they are fine if people are homosexual.
It's a pipe(bomb)dream.
Hamas only exists because of Israel. the PLO renounced terrorism did that make any difference with Israel NOOOOOO.
We will never know what physical condition they would have been in if Netanboohoo had not bombed them. The Israelis tried to starve the entire enclave knowing their people would also starve, and those children would lack food water and medicine. So its 100% on Netanboohoo. Compared to the IDF, Hamas is a humanitarian org.. They even shared their scarce food to keep Israelis alive while Israel was trying to starve and kill them.
I see. And how does that make your pipe(bomb)(wet) dream any more likely to happen?
But we do know what condition they would have been in if they had not been kidnapped by the vermin terrorists on Oct.7 who committed crimes against humanity, which you are more than willing to support.We will never know what physical condition they would have been in if Netanboohoo had not bombed them. The Israelis tried to starve the entire enclave knowing their people would also starve, and those children would lack food water and medicine. So its 100% on Netanboohoo. Compared to the IDF, Hamas is a humanitarian org.. They even shared their scarce food to keep Israelis alive while Israel was trying to starve and kill them.
They would be alive and healthy.
they were collateral damage by parents who brought them to occupied land and a warzone. The parents are to blame for getting them involved in the war, Natanboohoo is guilty for killing them. Hamas is fighting to free occupied land, 100% legal and has been ongoing for decades. No one can claim they were surprised Hamas attacked, they were just surprised at how well they fought.
If that's your argument then all of the Gazans that died were collateral damage. Not at all Israel's fault. You guys should think before you post. Your arguments wouldn't look so facile and stoopid.
Not true they were targeted and Israel has no legal right of retaliation as they are the occupier. Also they deliberately targeted children, not true of Hamas. Hamas are freedom fighters, Israel genocidal baby killers. If you absolve Israel you absolve Hitler. They have the same goals with their respective "projects" and their "final solution" is identical.
Then hamas targetted the babies.
Can you show us the international statute that backs that up and shows that Israel is not allowed to defend itself and its' citizens, especially against a terrorist attack. Or are you just aping Frans claims?
Good demonstration of a zionist trying to use logic.Lets break this down
Statement
Accusation, therefore a confession according to his own logic
We know that none of this would have happened if Israel wasn't illegally occupying Palestine, a war crime.
Hamas would have no need to resist the occupation if there was no occupation.
And until the occupation ends, they have the right to resist.
1) Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, as the occupier you cannot claim self defence against the people you occupy.
2) The occupying power is duty bound to provide care for those they occupy, not commit genocide.
3) You cannot declare war on an occupied territory.
Easy
‘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. ‘
No, Israel does not have a right to defend itself in Gaza. But the Palestinians do.
Basic morality and simple logic dictate that the right of self-defense belongs to the Palestinian people, not to their oppressor. And international law agrees.
mondoweiss.net
Last edited:
I asked for a citation of an international statute. Not a personal opinion.
OK.
Which the UNGA has passed no resolutions to that effect.
War was declared on an organization, hamas. Not a territory.
‘You are taking playing dumb to humiliating lengths
‘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. ‘
No, Israel does not have a right to defend itself in Gaza. But the Palestinians do.
