Boycott Israel

[Phoenall]

Oh dear. You think 242 delineates borders between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine?

Yes.

So why does it say

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force

When where these secure and recognised boundaries negotiated then as further on the resolution states


Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-
fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned
under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and
durable peace in the Middle East

 

[Phoenall]

Oh my. Perhaps you can point to me where, exactly, in 242, it outlines the borders of the State of Palestine or even mentions such a thing.

"1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from terratories occupied in the recent conflict;"

And it does not say all territories occupied does it. And reading the explanation given by the authors we see that was deliberate so that Israel would not be in danger from attacks.

No where does it state any borders to which the world will agree, and this is made clear in the resolution

 

[Phoenall]

Oh my. Perhaps you can point to me where, exactly, in 242, it outlines the borders of the State of Palestine or even mentions such a thing.

"1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from terratories occupied in the recent conflict;"

And it does not say all territories occupied does it. And reading the explanation given by the authors we see that was deliberate so that Israel would not be in danger from attacks.

No where does it state any borders to which the world will agree, and this is made clear in the resolution

 

[Phoenall]

Oh please.

Be clear what you are attempting to argue here. You are claiming that this single line creates a new reality: Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from terratories (sic) occupied in the recent conflict;"


You are claiming that 242 creates a new sovereignty.
You are claiming that 242 delineates the extent and specific territory of that new sovereignty.
You are claiming that 242 creates an unchallengeable or unchangeable condition.


You are just plain wrong.

1. The UN can not create sovereignty.
2. The UN can not delineate borders between States.
3. The UN can not create treaties between Parties or States.

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

As you have been told UN resolutions mean nothing and have no legal status

You mean you prefer the international laws that only exist in your fantasy world and work against the Jews

 

[P F Tinmore]

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

Really? Where have I EVER argued for the "might is right" approach? I have (and am) arguing for the "negotiation is right" approach and for the "mutual recognition is right" approach and for the "hey, let's share is right" approach.

And no, you do not prefer UN Resolutions and principles of international law. You prefer to parrot common tropes which are spread around like so much manure and turn away from discussing actual law.

Should anyone have to negotiate their rights?

 

[Hollie]

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

Really? Where have I EVER argued for the "might is right" approach? I have (and am) arguing for the "negotiation is right" approach and for the "mutual recognition is right" approach and for the "hey, let's share is right" approach.

And no, you do not prefer UN Resolutions and principles of international law. You prefer to parrot common tropes which are spread around like so much manure and turn away from discussing actual law.

Should anyone have to negotiate their rights?

In a manner, yes. When confronted with such fascist ideals as the Hamas Charter and Islamist ideology, one must be prepared to fight for ones rights and very survival.

 

[Phoenall]

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

Really? Where have I EVER argued for the "might is right" approach? I have (and am) arguing for the "negotiation is right" approach and for the "mutual recognition is right" approach and for the "hey, let's share is right" approach.

And no, you do not prefer UN Resolutions and principles of international law. You prefer to parrot common tropes which are spread around like so much manure and turn away from discussing actual law.

Should anyone have to negotiate their rights?

Yes when not doing so would impinge on another's rights. If by demanding a unilateral conclusion one side loses it's rights then it is wrong, and that is what you demand all the time. That Israel and the Jews give up everything that is theirs by right and hand it to the arab muslims who have no legal, moral or human rights to any of it

 

[Eloy]

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

Really? Where have I EVER argued for the "might is right" approach? I have (and am) arguing for the "negotiation is right" approach and for the "mutual recognition is right" approach and for the "hey, let's share is right" approach.

And no, you do not prefer UN Resolutions and principles of international law. You prefer to parrot common tropes which are spread around like so much manure and turn away from discussing actual law.

Yapping to the Israelis have got the Palestinians nowhere for half a century.

 

[Phoenall]

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

Really? Where have I EVER argued for the "might is right" approach? I have (and am) arguing for the "negotiation is right" approach and for the "mutual recognition is right" approach and for the "hey, let's share is right" approach.

And no, you do not prefer UN Resolutions and principles of international law. You prefer to parrot common tropes which are spread around like so much manure and turn away from discussing actual law.

Yapping to the Israelis have got the Palestinians nowhere for half a century.

Maybe they should employ better negotiators as the current ones only know one thing, and that is based around demands that the Jews line up to be shot and the land of Israel is given to the illegal immigrants.

 

[Hollie]

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

Really? Where have I EVER argued for the "might is right" approach? I have (and am) arguing for the "negotiation is right" approach and for the "mutual recognition is right" approach and for the "hey, let's share is right" approach.

And no, you do not prefer UN Resolutions and principles of international law. You prefer to parrot common tropes which are spread around like so much manure and turn away from discussing actual law.

Yapping to the Israelis have got the Palestinians nowhere for half a century.

The vast majority of the islamist Middle East is a political, intellectual and socio-economic waste land. In spite of a money spigot known as the UNRWA welfare fraud, the Pal'istanians still managed to do nothing but drag their little piece of the islamist dystopia back into the 7th century.

You need some new excuses to bolster your apologetics for islamist ineptitude and incompetence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

Really? Where have I EVER argued for the "might is right" approach? I have (and am) arguing for the "negotiation is right" approach and for the "mutual recognition is right" approach and for the "hey, let's share is right" approach.

And no, you do not prefer UN Resolutions and principles of international law. You prefer to parrot common tropes which are spread around like so much manure and turn away from discussing actual law.

Should anyone have to negotiate their rights?

Yes when not doing so would impinge on another's rights. If by demanding a unilateral conclusion one side loses it's rights then it is wrong, and that is what you demand all the time. That Israel and the Jews give up everything that is theirs by right and hand it to the arab muslims who have no legal, moral or human rights to any of it

What have the Palestinians asked for that they are not entitled to?

 

[Hollie]

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

Really? Where have I EVER argued for the "might is right" approach? I have (and am) arguing for the "negotiation is right" approach and for the "mutual recognition is right" approach and for the "hey, let's share is right" approach.

And no, you do not prefer UN Resolutions and principles of international law. You prefer to parrot common tropes which are spread around like so much manure and turn away from discussing actual law.

Should anyone have to negotiate their rights?

Yes when not doing so would impinge on another's rights. If by demanding a unilateral conclusion one side loses it's rights then it is wrong, and that is what you demand all the time. That Israel and the Jews give up everything that is theirs by right and hand it to the arab muslims who have no legal, moral or human rights to any of it

What have the Palestinians asked for that they are not entitled to?

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5) May Allah Pity his Soul

 

[Phoenall]

Have it your own way, Shusha, the might is right approach.
I prefer UN Resolutions and the principles of International law.

Really? Where have I EVER argued for the "might is right" approach? I have (and am) arguing for the "negotiation is right" approach and for the "mutual recognition is right" approach and for the "hey, let's share is right" approach.

And no, you do not prefer UN Resolutions and principles of international law. You prefer to parrot common tropes which are spread around like so much manure and turn away from discussing actual law.

Should anyone have to negotiate their rights?

Yes when not doing so would impinge on another's rights. If by demanding a unilateral conclusion one side loses it's rights then it is wrong, and that is what you demand all the time. That Israel and the Jews give up everything that is theirs by right and hand it to the arab muslims who have no legal, moral or human rights to any of it

What have the Palestinians asked for that they are not entitled to?

Land granted to the Jews under international law of 1922, the removal of all Jews from their holy sites so they can destroy them. The right of return to arab muslims that have never even seen Israel, the genocide of every Jew. Want more of their illegal demands as they are well documented

 

[Shusha]

You should realise by now that team palestine will invent international laws because they know the real ones work in Israel's favour. They will claim that all UN resolutions are international laws even though the UN says they are just recommendations, and point to them all the time. Like the right of return that was vetoed by the arab nations because they would be forced to give up all the lands they have stolen, and still they claim it as a fundemental right for the arab muslims

Yep. Team Palestine changes the meaning of, exaggerates, stretches and re-words international law all the time. Words like "Jewish National Home" get ignored. Unoccupied land becomes suddenly occupied because the meaning is adjusted to suit the Palestinians (who G-d forbid shouldn't actually have any responsibility for themselves along with their self-determination). It becomes permissible to suggest the cleansing of territory based on ethnicity, something unheard of in other places and appalling in its suggestion. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Eloy]

You should realise by now that team palestine will invent international laws because they know the real ones work in Israel's favour. They will claim that all UN resolutions are international laws even though the UN says they are just recommendations, and point to them all the time. Like the right of return that was vetoed by the arab nations because they would be forced to give up all the lands they have stolen, and still they claim it as a fundemental right for the arab muslims

Yep. Team Palestine changes the meaning of, exaggerates, stretches and re-words international law all the time. Words like "Jewish National Home" get ignored. Unoccupied land becomes suddenly occupied because the meaning is adjusted to suit the Palestinians (who G-d forbid shouldn't actually have any responsibility for themselves along with their self-determination). It becomes permissible to suggest the cleansing of territory based on ethnicity, something unheard of in other places and appalling in its suggestion. etc. etc. etc.

"unoccupied land"??? Arabs have been living in the Middle East from time immemorial.

 

[Phoenall]

You should realise by now that team palestine will invent international laws because they know the real ones work in Israel's favour. They will claim that all UN resolutions are international laws even though the UN says they are just recommendations, and point to them all the time. Like the right of return that was vetoed by the arab nations because they would be forced to give up all the lands they have stolen, and still they claim it as a fundemental right for the arab muslims

Yep. Team Palestine changes the meaning of, exaggerates, stretches and re-words international law all the time. Words like "Jewish National Home" get ignored. Unoccupied land becomes suddenly occupied because the meaning is adjusted to suit the Palestinians (who G-d forbid shouldn't actually have any responsibility for themselves along with their self-determination). It becomes permissible to suggest the cleansing of territory based on ethnicity, something unheard of in other places and appalling in its suggestion. etc. etc. etc.

"unoccupied land"??? Arabs have been living in the Middle East from time immemorial.

And again you re-write history and leave the Jews out because they muddy your waters.

The Jews have been there for 4,500 years and then some, the arab muslims for 22 years before being evicted in 1099. It is only the hate sites that manipulate, changes and stretches the truth that say otherwise. The arab muslims may have lived in the M.E. it does not mean that they lived in Israel. Until 635 C.E. Mecca and Medina were Jewish cities that the arab's lived close to because of the work prospects, then mo'mad ethnically cleansed them of the Jews and the whole area went rapidly downhill.

You do realise that the M.E. spreads from Turkey in the north to the Arabian sea in the south, from Afghanisatn in the east to Egypt in the west

 

[Shusha]

Should anyone have to negotiate their rights?

No one is negotiating their rights. They are negotiating the specific territory within which they are enacting their rights.

And, as one of the people who is denying the rights of the Jewish people, you have no business imposing this claim to some sort of moral high ground.

 

[Shusha]

You should realise by now that team palestine will invent international laws because they know the real ones work in Israel's favour. They will claim that all UN resolutions are international laws even though the UN says they are just recommendations, and point to them all the time. Like the right of return that was vetoed by the arab nations because they would be forced to give up all the lands they have stolen, and still they claim it as a fundemental right for the arab muslims

Yep. Team Palestine changes the meaning of, exaggerates, stretches and re-words international law all the time. Words like "Jewish National Home" get ignored. Unoccupied land becomes suddenly occupied because the meaning is adjusted to suit the Palestinians (who G-d forbid shouldn't actually have any responsibility for themselves along with their self-determination). It becomes permissible to suggest the cleansing of territory based on ethnicity, something unheard of in other places and appalling in its suggestion. etc. etc. etc.

"unoccupied land"??? Arabs have been living in the Middle East from time immemorial.

You misunderstand me. I was speaking of Gaza, from which Israel withdrew and thus it is no longer occupied.

 

[Shusha]

What have the Palestinians asked for that they are not entitled to?

What have the Jewish people asked for that they are not entitled to?

The problem with overlapping rights or entitlements is that neither party can have the whole pie as that leaves the other party with an empty plate. The only solution is to cut the pie. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Eloy]

You should realise by now that team palestine will invent international laws because they know the real ones work in Israel's favour. They will claim that all UN resolutions are international laws even though the UN says they are just recommendations, and point to them all the time. Like the right of return that was vetoed by the arab nations because they would be forced to give up all the lands they have stolen, and still they claim it as a fundemental right for the arab muslims

Yep. Team Palestine changes the meaning of, exaggerates, stretches and re-words international law all the time. Words like "Jewish National Home" get ignored. Unoccupied land becomes suddenly occupied because the meaning is adjusted to suit the Palestinians (who G-d forbid shouldn't actually have any responsibility for themselves along with their self-determination). It becomes permissible to suggest the cleansing of territory based on ethnicity, something unheard of in other places and appalling in its suggestion. etc. etc. etc.

"unoccupied land"??? Arabs have been living in the Middle East from time immemorial.

You misunderstand me. I was speaking of Gaza, from which Israel withdrew and thus it is no longer occupied.

I explained in an earlier why Gaza is considered occupied.