22 Israelis murdered 180 wounded during the last two months

LOL!!!!!

the UN Security Council, Israeli Supreme Court, and International Court of Justice don't issue "opinions". They issue FACTS!!!

 

And they are all been contradficted by their own charther.

 

the UNSC, ICJ, and Israeli Supreme court says otherwise.

and they are a lot more qualified than you

 

Its not my opinion, but it is what the international law says, and they were all been contradicted by the UN Charter.

 

forgive me, but I take the word of the UNSC, ICJ, and Israeli Supreme Court over an anonymous internet forum member

 

Please read comment #329.

 

You're not the judge of that.
The UN, the UNSC and the ICJ are.

Nope... the rights were given to the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"
Them immigrant Jews got no rights to thieve the property of those people.
But they did that, and keep on doing that.
And so apparently that effected the judgment of the UN, UNSC and the ICJ.
All what Jewish immigrants was given was vacant land.

- - - Updated - - -

Which stated:
"Its not my opinion, but it is what the international law says, and they were all been contradicted by the UN Charter."

It is your opinion. Your no expert of international law. The UN, UNSC and the ICJ is.

 

he thinks his opinion outweighs the official declerations of the UNSC, ICJ, and Israeli Supreme Court.

its pretty delusional huh?

 

And all of them are been contradicted by their own Charter, Article 80. And that's is been reinforced by verious international law experts such as Prof. Rostow, that helped drat Resolution 242.

The place where it states "non-Jewish communities" was in the premble, which stated:

Which was the part that came after the part that stated that the Jewish will enjoy the re-estblishment of their national home in the Land of Israel (as you refer it "Palestine"):

Which means, that the Mandate's term are for the aim that was related to the Jewish people, while the civil and politica rights of the non-Jewish comminities should not be harmed while fulfillling the goal that was referred to the Jewish people.

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

 

No its not at all. You just can't understand the legal points he's making so you call them that,

 

The absolute highest of international law experts are the judges in the ICJ.
You've been trumped.

The part that you ignore is... it being clearly understood.
That some part comes before or after an other is totally irrelevant gibberish.
That makes it so, that above everything mentioned in that document... this "clearly understood" part is above everything
So no immigrant Jew got any right to ethnic cleanse some indigenous person, because that violates the civil rights.
And that is what Jews have done, what Israel is doing. It's thieving land again and again against the will of indigenous people

 

They've been contradicted by their own charter.

I guess that you are talking about the 700,000 that were allegedly forced out of their houses during the independece war by the Jews, right? For that I have testimonies from Arab leaders that states that they call for the Arabs to leave their houses until they will defeat the Jews, and then would let al the Arabs that left during the war back.

 

How does that compare with Chicago murder rate...

... over the last two months?

 

That part that 1 document outweighs an other is not delusional.
The part that his opinion and the opinion of that Rostow outweighs the opinion of the judges of the ICJ etc etc.. is a joke.
He ignores that there are more and higher qualified people in the UNSC, the UN and the ICJ.
The people of the ICJ, UNSC and the UN simply trump him and Rostow.


It wouldn't surprise me that Rostow, a Jew, "has" properties in the WB.

 

Who says it's contradicting? Rostow? He aint the judge of that. The judges of the ICJ are the judges of it / being far more of an expert than Rostow on this matter. And they are trumping your and Rostow's opinion. I told you before. And you have no response at all to the point that the judges of the ICJ are far more superior/qualified than Rostow.

Wrong. The Israeli Jews keep on thieving from the Arabs against their will upon this day.

A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948," says: At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations. To this figure, the report's compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%… of the emigration." A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases

And that is even according to Israel. Needless to say that is an exaggeration.
Besides that, I leave my house about everyday. It remains to be my property.
People who just take it without my consent, are thieves and violating my civil rights.
And apperantly that is where you, Israel and it's Jews incl Rostow,.. are in the wrong.

 

Prof. Rostow hepled to draft Resolution 242, Do you think that Tesolution 242 was a mistake and nonsense? I already asked you that twice, but didnt really get an answer.

I have more then just Rostow, Rostow is just an example.

As I told Ronstar erlier, if the Arabs have problem with where the settlements with the claims that they were built on Arab private lands, they can go the court, present their evidences for their claims and let the judges decide, but since that didnt happen (exapt of only few oceasions), then I dont see the problem.

Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25:

General John Glubb "Pasha," The London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948:

Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph September 6, 1948. (same appeared in The London Telegraph, August 1948 ):

A book by Barry Shaw he qouted Near East Arabic broadcasting station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949:

Haifa district HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1949:

The Beirut Muslim Weekly "Kul-Shay", August 19, 1949:

Khaled Al Azam, former Syrian prime minister, wrote in his book:

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/comments/22379

According to the Refugee Convention from 1951, which deteiled about "who is a refugee", stated that a refugee will cease to be referred as such if:

Which means, that whoever that re-estalibhsed his life in the country that he left to, then he cant be considered as a "reugee" according to this convention, and because that the Arabs who left in 1948 re-established themselves in the Arabs countries that they left to, then they dont consider as a refugee.
Of course that whoever that acquired a new nationality cant be considered as "refugee", and since the Arab countries gave nationality to part of the Arabs that fled from the 1948 war, then those Arabs cant be considered as "refugees".

Source: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx

 

UNSC 242 has nothing to do with whether the Mandate is still in effect and the West Bank is under Occupation.

- - - Updated - - -

Arabs cannot sue Israel for land lost during the 1948 War. Even if they are Israeli citizens.

 

There is no occupation in the West Bank, or maybe are you telling me that when there is an Arab autonomy there is an occupation?

 

so you are calling the UNSC, the ICJ, the Israeli Supreme Court, liars?

where did you get your Masters in International Law?

 

You talk about A, while I'm talking about B.
notme talked about the current reality, as he sees it, so I told him that the Arabs can take it to court with evidences, as they did in the past. But since the Arabs dont do it, then there is no problem.

 

I'm only saying that the UN and the UNSC are been contradicted by their own charter.
And regarding the ICJ:
In Article 73 from the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 2004:

Source: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/...256EEB004F6D20

Now, if the ICJ refered the West Bank as areas that constituted "Palestine" under the British Mandate, then it means that they used what was written in the Mandate that says that the Jews have the right to settle in "Palestine", which means that if they used a statement from the Mandate (when they wrote in Article 73 that it's cunstituted "Palestine"), then they need also to refered the West Bank as it was refered in the Mandate, which is a place that Jews can settle, which makes the argument that "the settlements are illegal", as false argument.

 

you don't know about Israeli law.

Arabs cannot sue for land lost during the 1948 War.

Israel passed a law making it illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

with all due respect, I am confident that the UNSC and ICJ knows the UN Charter much better than you.

 

I do know about the Israeli law, dont worry.

And still it didnt stop them from passing resolutions that are in contradiction with their charter.

 

sorry bro, but its illegal to sue for land confiscated during the 1948 War.

in fact, Israel even confiscated land from internakl Arab refugees, and they also cannot sue for that land.

looks like I know more about Israeli law.

 

You talk about A, while I'm talking about B.
notme talked about the current reality, as he sees it, so I told him that the Arabs can take it to court with evidences, as they did in the past. But since the Arabs dont do it, then there is no problem.