Yes it does, it’s in the previous sentence.
There are no illegal settlements, Israel won wars the Arab nations started in 48 and 67 and 73.
Do you demand that France and Poland return the land they won from Germany in World War II?
I suspect you don’t and I suspect we both know the answer why.
The original Hamas charter (that was never revoked) calls for the murder of Jews. If Jews moved out of the west bank, the muslims that want to to murder Jews at the end of time per their hadiths would still wish to do so. They don’t want a second Arab State, they want there to be no Jewish state.
If the israelis are allowed to breach the Geneva conventions, as understood by the UN according to numerous resolutions, so are the palestinians and syrians. 'They won' probably isn't the argument you think it is.
What do you mean, "revoked"? How would that be done? Would it be enough if Ahmed Yassin said on record that jews aren't the issue, the occupation and apartheid is? And how should the 2017 charter be understood, unless it replaces any previous charters?
No, this is not how logic works. I have pointed out the between the river and the sea is Israel. You do not get to refute the point with zero supporting arguments.
The UN is stacked with countries that have fought to destroy Israel and lost. UN resolutions have become meaningless. One UN organisation literally exist to aid Hamas. We know what the UN supports, denouncement from it means nothing.
By revoked, I mean, the 2017 charter made to appease Western Hamas supporters like yourself does not officially replace the existing charter that calls for the destruction of Jews worldwide.
Now, will you answer the question about why you don’t call on Poland and France to return Germany’s land? Why is it specifically you do not believe Jews are allowed to win a war whereas French and Polish people are?
Will you also address the point that giving arabs more land will not make them stop wanting to destroy Jews?
I'd address that point by noting that one of Hamas's likely goals in the Oct 7 attack was to prevent the upcoming Saudi diplomatic recognition of Israel. https://www.politico.eu/article/saudi-arabia-israel-deal-tat... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67922238
You're doing a lot of conflating Jews with Israel/Zionism/Netanyahu, and Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians with Hamas. There's a reason no one reputable is calling this the "Arab-Jewish War".
OK, so you also disagree with the Fourth Geneva Convention, then? You'd be fine with Syria joining forces with Hezbollah and iraqi militias to take Golan and north of Israel by force and expelling or subduing through apartheid whatever population they come across? I have a feeling that e.g. the small groups of circassians that still exist and live in northern Israel might disagree with you and prefer another international legal order.
I don't think it's made to appease "Western Hamas supporters". They've clarified that the enemy is zionists, which is a much larger group than "the Jews", as the previous charter put it. Some, like you, seem to interpret "the Jews" in the old text as 'all the jews in the world', while Hamas leaders have said that they meant the jews of Israel. Ahmed Yassin has said, on camera, that his movement doesn't have a problem with jews, but with occupiers, and that if a muslim stole his land he would resist that too.
A problem with your interpretation is that many palestinians aren't aware that there are jews elsewhere in the world, or that zionism is a predominantly christian project rather than a jewish one, so when they are refering to 'the jews' one needs to figure out whether they mean israeli jews or jews in general.
Has the UN demanded that Poland and France do so? Are Poland and France states imposing apartheid on germans, or have they ethnically cleansed these areas?
Kinda weird racist remark about arabs being inherently genocidal at the end there. Maybe edit it and make it less weird?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/world/middleeast/israel-s...
"Israel’s Supreme Court on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a 2017 law that would have allowed for the retroactive legalization of thousands of Jewish homes built on occupied West Bank land privately owned by Palestinians, a law so provocative that few believed when it was passed that it would survive judicial review."
"Those homes — already viewed as illegal by most of the world under international law, for having been built in occupied territory — will now remain illegal under Israeli law as well, and Palestinian landowners will be able to proceed with lawsuits seeking to evict the people living in them and recover their property."
> The original Hamas charter (that was never revoked) calls for the murder of Jews.
And the original charter of Netanyahu's political party says "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty".
Yes. Arabs got all of Jordan. That you see Likud’s charter stating Jews want a smaller version of their historical homeland as being comparable to Hamas charter calling for the murder of all Jews says more about you than it does about Likud.
Israel has been sabotaging peace talks and applying divide et impera politics in the region since it was created.
Sheikh Yassin, the paraplegic spiritual leader of the Hamas movement was quite clear that their beef wasn't with the jews, but with the occupation and apartheid. He was assassinated by Israel in 2004. In hindsight Hamas was correct in not trusting the israelis in the Oslo talks.
It's more like 700000 jews that would definitely need to move, i.e. the illegal settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem.