- Banned
- #101
You're the one who said it didn't exist.Are you really that thick?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're the one who said it didn't exist.Are you really that thick?
You're the one who said it didn't exist.
Not even the US. And not even Israel itself! The Israeli High Court still considers these lands "occupied"I don't know. The US?
Negro, please! I've read it more times than you have.Again, you obviously haven't read 242.
that "attempt" was actually the authors explaining what they meant when they wrote the document. Are you calling their explanation of their own work and words BS? Are you publicly rejecting the statements of the authors of the text regarding meaning?What you provided was some bullshit attempt to cherrypick parts of 242 to make it seem it was saying something other than it was stating. I completely reject your bullshit attempt at redefining what 242 said.
The meaning of 242 was clear. It is inadmissible to hold onto land seized in a war and Israel needs to get its fucking, immoral army out of the OPT.
Exactly. We agree that Jordan and Egypt had no right to seize that land. Good thing all claims and states of belligerency between the States in the area were terminated and every State in the area recognized the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of the other States.It is inadmissible to hold onto land seized in a war...
You're the one who said it didn't exist.
Not even the US. And not even Israel itself! The Israeli High Court still considers these lands "occupied"
I don't know. The US?
Is that true?... not even Israel itself! The Israeli High Court still considers these lands "occupied"
Obviously not, since you have no idea what it says.Negro, please! I've read it more times than you have.
Look, Israel is the biggest military power in the region. No other country comes close.I do not agree.
Maybe.
Presumably.
That's a mistake. If you include the US then you've shot yourself in the foot in your previous statement.
You are on acid!The part where you quoted the text incorrectly?
Doesn't matter!Seized from whom?
Doesn't matter!I did indeed.
And you’re the one that hasn’t noticed there is no Palestinian state.
Doesn't matter!
No, they were not authors of 242. Just some bullshit Israeli hasbara group trying to muddy up the waters.that "attempt" was actually the authors explaining what they meant when they wrote the document. Are you calling their explanation of their own work and words BS? Are you publicly rejecting the statements of the authors of the text regarding meaning?
I note that when you "quoted" 242 you wrote "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the occupied territories" but 242 doesn't say "the occupied". Any reason you would intentionally misquote and insert a word that the authors specifically did not include? Why would you be so intellectually dishonest by changing what the text says?
I disagree with the term "disputed territory" as well. This terminology implies there is some legal question or grey area concerning the territory and two equal, but competing claims to sovereignty. This is incorrect. Only Israel has legal claim to sovereignty over the Mandate territory. In order for another sovereign to claim territory, Israel must relinquish control over the territory then cede it in a treaty. Israel has done the former, the latter remains elusive. ,A country cannot occupy territory to which it has sovereign title; hence, the correct term for the area is “disputed territory,” which does not confer greater rights to either Israel or the Palestinians.
Nice try. You fail.Exactly. We agree that Jordan and Egypt had no right to seize that land. Good thing all claims and states of belligerency between the States in the area were terminated and every State in the area recognized the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of the other States.
242 resolved and put in the history books. (Well, Golan Heights being the exception).
Dude, I posted the text verbatim. You misquoted it.You are on acid!
I'm fairly certain of that but you've mixed in some other facts that weaken your main point. It is unwise to use US support as motivated proof of strength in the Middle East for Israel but then ignore the possibility of Iranian, Houthi, Russian and Chinese support for Palestine. If you put all of them in lock-step then I don't give Israel much of a chance to survive.Look, Israel is the biggest military power in the region. No other country comes close.
No, it very much does matter. It is inadmissible to acquire the territory of another sovereign through belligerency and aggression. It is perfectly legal to reclaim occupied territory.Doesn't matter!