Al-Aqsa: Palestinians killed as Jerusalem protests rage

[19887]

Solution: All this stuff should be ripped down. Open a McDonalds and a night club there. Party is better than hate.

I always said that you had to dig under, discover the archeology and then bomb the whole place and close it

 

[KRAIT]

Try saying that in front of Palestinian in person. peter scully

Finally you came out of your closet. I can say this to any Palestinian. What will they do?

Solution: All this stuff should be ripped down. Open a McDonalds and a night club there. Party is better than hate.

Hahahaha....perfect solution. Chester songs in tribute.

shut up its non of your business swine

Awww.so cute. Calling me swine. Swine is haram.

 

[Mugwop]

Finally you came out of your closet. I can say this to any Palestinian. What will they do?


Hahahaha....perfect solution. Chester songs in tribute.

No you can't you are just a keyboard warrior trying to make yourself relevant. No israeli gives a sh*t about you despite your cheer leading

 

[Falcon29]

shut up its non of your business swine

I don't mind at all as long as he not trolling. That stuff he was writing is not worthy of taking seriously.

I always said that you had to dig under, discover the archeology and then bomb the whole place and close it

^^^

If anyone not convinced that this guy is a extremist or a troll ....

 

[KRAIT]

No you can't you are just a keyboard warrior trying to make yourself relevant. No israeli gives a sh*t about you despite your cheer leading

Awww...so cute. Like you cheerlead for Chinese.

 

[19887]

I don't mind at all as long as he not trolling. That stuff he was writing is not worthy of taking seriously.



^^^

If anyone not convinced that this guy is a extremist or a troll ....

Keep trying to get me out of the way, you play into my hands

Now I want you to define what is extreme and explain how I answer this definition
Then explain what a troll is and how I answer that definition

If you will not answer well, you're a troll yourself

 

[Solomon2]

When the day comes, we will take no prisoners and we will make no peace.

Unlike the Zionists, who are merciful and charitable in their victories.

It's a contest between viciousness and virtue. You know what side you are on now.

 

[Mugwop]

Awww...so cute. Like you cheerlead for Chinese.

No not me but all of india's neighbors do
Meanwhile no israeli even bothered to like your post

 

[Solomon2]

Go ahead and provide sources for this claim. Should be very quick since you're adamant about it.

Short answer: it's in the League of Nations Palestine Mandate that Jews are encouraged to "closely settle" the area; Jordan's 1947-67 occupation of the area was illegal. And since Article 80 of the U.N. Charter forbids the U.N. from changing the Mandate without the endorsement of the Jews, most of the U.N.'s anti-Israel Resolutions have absolutely no legal merit.

It's a tough test for the Muslims here, and even more so for you, Falcon29: to ENDORSE the Zionists' morally and legally justifiable deeds, rather than stick together out of clannishness or sectarianism and blindly and immorally condemn Zionist Jews and their supporters. But failure to do so leaves your world turned upside-down, at the feet of tyrants and hate-manipulators, rather than justice and self-determination.

 

[Falcon29]

Short answer: it's in the League of Nations Palestine Mandate that Jews are encouraged to "closely settle" the area;

Huh? The British Mandate? Where did you come to the conclusion that establishing settlements and transferring civilians to the West Bank is legal? That does not imply that at all, and the league of nations is long dissolved. The United Nations dictates these legal terms. And they have established there is no legal validity to them:

.....
14 Delegations in Favour of Resolution 2334 (2016) as United States Abstains
The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm
.....

Jordan's 1947-67 occupation of the area was illegal.

Which was requested by the US, UK and Jewish movements. The Arabs and others opposed it. And Jordan withdrew completely. What's your point? Now onus is on Israel to withdraw most of its military forces and allow for creation of a Palestinian state.

And since Article 80 of the U.N. Charter forbids the U.N. from changing the Mandate without the endorsement of the Jews, most of the U.N.'s anti-Israel Resolutions have absolutely no legal merit.

Refutal here:

These claims are marred by several inaccuracies, starting from the fact that the term “national home” had no mutually agreed upon meaning or scope and that the British government was under no definite obligation, since the Mandate made any Jewish immigration subject to “suitable conditions” and contained safeguards for the rights and position of the non-Jewish communities.

Furthermore, as David Ben-Gurion clarified in July 1947 in front of the UNSCOP commission:

The Mandate, in fact, does not exist because it was violated by the Mandatory. We are not in favour of renewing it. […] we say that the original intention and the need, and what in our conviction is just, should be decided upon by the United Nations […] I said we do not ask for a Mandate any more, so it is not a question. The question does not arise on the Mandate.

Also the assertion that Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the Mandate for Palestine is more complex than often claimed. One of the legal advisors to the Jewish Agency, Jacob Robinson, published a book in 1947 that presented a historical account of the Palestine Question and the UN. He explained that when the Jewish Agency learned that the Allied Powers had discussed at the Yalta Conference (February 1945) a new system of international supervision to supersede the system of mandates, the Agency decided to submit a formal request to the San Francisco Conference (April-June 1945) to obtain a safeguarding clause in the UN Charter. The proposed clause would have prevented a trusteeship agreement from altering the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine. The UN Conference ignored the Agency’s request and stipulated in article 80 of the Charter that the UN organization did have the necessary power to conclude trusteeship agreements that could alter existing rights held under a mandate.

Robinson tried to portray a legal setback as a victory and convince everyone that Article 80 of the Charter accomplished the Agency’s stated objective. Indeed, the final text adopted by the working paper for international trusteeship contained an exception that allowed trusteeship agreements to do exactly what the Jewish Agency had tried to prohibit. In Article 80’s words: “Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship arrangements placing each territory under the trusteeship system, nothing in this chapter should be construed in and of itself to alter in any manner the rights of any state or any peoples in any territory”.

Article 1 of General Assembly resolution 24(I) reserved the right of the UN to decide not to assume any function or power of the League of Nations. On the 19th March 1948, during the 271st meeting of the Security Council, US Ambassador Warren Austin cited UN General Assembly resolution 24(I) and pointed out:

The United Nations does not automatically fall heir to the responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in respect of the Palestine Mandate. The record seems to us entirely clear that the United Nations did not take over the League of Nations Mandate system.

On top of all these considerations, the above mentioned thesis of “exclusivity”, besides being unjustified from an historical point of view – Palestine did not belong in an exclusive way to one single population in its entire history – is incorrect also from the legal perspective imposed since the early stage by London. Hubert Young, an important figure of the Foreign Office, wrote in November 1920 that the commitment made by London “in respect of Palestine is the Balfour Declaration constituting it a National Home for the Jewish People”. Lord Curzon corrected him: “No. ‘Establishing a National Home in Palestine for the Jewish people’ – a very different proposition”.

The British White Paper of June 1922 – the first document that officially clarified the interpretation of the Mandate’s text – clarified that the Balfour Declaration does “not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine’”. Furthermore, it stressed – and this is perhaps the most relevant aspect – that the “Zionist congress” that took place in Carlsbad in September 1921 had officially accepted that “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development”.

...........

http://www.e-ir.info/2014/02/14/the...nd-the-selflegitimizazion-of-the-settlements/[/QUOTE]

 

[DavidSling]

Solution: All this stuff should be ripped down. Open a McDonalds and a night club there. Party is better than hate.

Try that and see where it leads u if not to the same spot with harsher response

 

[Mugwop]

 

[313ghazi]

So according to your logic, is this what Israel should do to the Arabs at the moment?


Why leave?
You think I do not know what they're doing?
I use them to expose their nakedness, their lies
There are a lot of people who read and will read the posts here, and it's important that they know the truth, I'm not trying to convince the liars

The Quran warned Muslims of people like zionists 1400 years ago. It clearly states they will bring mischief and yet claim to be peace makers.

What should you do? Return all Palestinian lands to Palestinian people. Zionists took advantage of the occupation of Palestine by a foreign empire and convinced that empire to grant them a state in land that belonged to other people. You used terrorism, politics and war to achieve your aims.

When you take someones home, oppress them, kill them, you should not be surprised when they react.

I have no problem whatsoever with followers of the Jewish faith living in the land known as Palestine. God created all men, God created all land. My only objection to that is if this happens at the cost of the homes, the lands, the lives and the freedom of the people of Palestine.

If Israel should make peace with the Palestinians then I think all the people who live in that land right now should be allowed to continue to live with equality and dignity.

If the land is won back by war, I don't think a single Israeli should be allowed to stay unless they sign a contract stating they reject the notion of the formation of a Jewish state on the lands between the Nile and the Eauphrates.
Ultimately the only opinion that matters is that of the people of Palestine and thier elected leaders, and whilst it has its strength the only will that will be implemented is that of the Israeli state.

 

[DavidSling]

The Quran warned Muslims of people like zionists 1400 years ago. It clearly states they will bring mischief and yet claim to be peace makers.

What should you do? Return all Palestinian lands to Palestinian people. Zionists took advantage of the occupation of Palestine by a foreign empire and convinced that empire to grant them a state in land that belonged to other people. You used terrorism, politics and war to achieve your aims.

When you take someones home, oppress them, kill them, you should not be surprised when they react.

I have no problem whatsoever with followers of the Jewish faith living in the land known as Palestine. God created all men, God created all land. My only objection to that is if this happens at the cost of the homes, the lands, the lives and the freedom of the people of Palestine.

If Israel should make peace with the Palestinians then I think all the people who live in that land right now should be allowed to continue to live with equality and dignity.

If the land is won back by war, I don't think a single Israeli should be allowed to stay unless they sign a contract stating they reject the notion of the formation of a Jewish state on the lands between the Nile and the Eauphrates.
Ultimately the only opinion that matters is that of the people of Palestine and thier elected leaders, and whilst it has its strength the only will that will be implemented is that of the Israeli state.

So cause jews won the war that ARABS started they have no legitimacy to stay there, BUT if arabs would win the war THEY started then they had the right to?
DONT start a war you can't win cause ull HAVE to face the results of your actions.
That's how the world WORKS.
Palestinians or arabs or muslims w/e u want call them HAD the chance to live side by side with jews and they DECLINED

And western bank was PART of JORDAN before Israel captured it, not "PALESTINE"
Trying to change the history, pathetic

 

[Falcon29]

Skip to 0:48, Israeli officer kicks Palestinian praying on the street in the left rib cage area:

Palestinians or arabs or muslims w/e u want call them HAD the chance to live side by side with jews and they DECLINED

You guys were not present in Palestine, only in insignificant numbers in late 1800's. So you did have the choice to live besides us peacefully. Instead, you managed to secure British support to deliver millions of European Jews unto Palestinian land, and carve out a state for them forcefully(militarily) with no local support. So that's far from the narrative you present.