Hamas War Crimes Against Palestinians

[Challenger]

Humanity, et al,

(OFF-TOPIC)

Well, I don't think that the issue of "occupation" is being denied.

Strangely enough Phoney... I don't have to do anything...

Particularly when it comes to the occupied territories....

'Occupation Deniers' are as pointless as "Holocaust Deniers' and do not deserve to be entered into any kind of debate with....

Go Google Occupied Territories and then you will see why you are pointless!

(COMMENT)

The questions about "occupation" revolve around a couple of issues:

• Is the occupation "illegal?"
• What areas of the territory are considered "occupied?"
• When did "occupation" begin?
• Who was originally "occupied?"
​

This move to reflect the discussion concerning the "occupation" on the basis of some unsubstantiated denial is merely a debating strategy. Reasonable inductive arguments support the conclusions. In the arguments presented concerning "occupation" --- even if their premises are true --- that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true.

• There is no definition that distinguishes a "legal" occupation from an "illegal" occupation; even under Chapter VII conditions.
• The definition for an "occupation" is fairly rigorous and uncomplicated:

∆ The area under discussion must be placed under the actual authority of the hostile army.
∆ The area claimed to be "occupied" --- extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
∆ The Gaza Strip was evacuated by the "Occupation Force" in 2005.
∆ The Oslo Accords established by agreement the jurisdiction of Area "C" in the West Bank.
​

• In 1967, there was no State of Palestine, or territory under the effective control of the Palestinians:

∆ The "occupied" territories are considered those in which the Article 51 Defensive action was taken in 1967 (not 1948).
∆ Gaza was (in 1967) territory controlled by Egypt.
∆ The West Bank was (in 1967) territory controlled by Jordan.
​

There is plenty of issues, relative to "occupation" that remain questionable. The least of which is that in 1967 on the outbreak of hostilities (the 1948 War of Independence) was rekindled, and the Armistice was broken. The validity of the established 1949 Armistice Lines were effectively made irrelevant. Similarly, the 1973 War, a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence, again made the previously established Armistice Lines further in question.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN Security Council disagrees with you. S/RES/476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

 

[RoccoR]

Humanity, et al,

No, I do not agree.

Interpretation and semantics of Resolutions and Conventions are the issue here...

We can all debate on whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not, whether Resolutions have any impact or not.... Really doesn't matter, not in the real world!

Legal occupation or otherwise, ONLY Israel considers they have a right to occupy these territories...

It's not difficult then to draw a very clear conclusion that the world governments, even those that support Israel, consider the occupation illegal...

(COMMENT)

1. The Geneva Convention applies to the "occupation;" but, it does not speak to the issue of legality or right or justification for the occupation.

2. Israel has not said it has a "right" to occupy the territory. It says that it is out of a necessity that "occupation" is required; for a number of different reasons.

3. In the real world, the impact of the political position of other world governments is always something that is of concern and due consideration. Yet, when it come to defending the sovereign integrity of a nation, all countries operate in a utilitarian fashion (their own best interest). And while many countries will critique Israel for this, that, and the other thing, --- in the end, they remember the past criminal history of Arab Palestinians which engaged in international terrorism, and they understand that the leopard can't/doesn't change its spots; it will always be a leopard.

Your interpretation of Resolution 242 is different from what the political language of the day meant. Let the authors speak for themselves:

Rostow:
"He did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated."
"It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines."
"Which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."
"And then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land."

Goldberg:
"The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war."
"Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no."
"Whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries."

Brown:
"The resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about."
"Which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Hargrove:
"Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement."
​

The UN Security Council disagrees with you. S/RES/476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

(COMMENT)

Yes, --- another misunderstanding. It is not "me" in which you are in disagreement; but rather the people that wrote the resolution and have said what it means. UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980), is worded different. It does not clarify withdrawal issues in any meaningful way. It says:

• "Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"
​

But this was just a encouragement for the end of the hostilities. In 1980, this was more than a decade before the Oslo Accords and the exchange of agreements between Israel and the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian people).

It doesn't say anything new in concerning the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

It is important that we understand what UN Security Council Resolution 242 actually said.

I agree. It's interesting that the interpretations by the two Jewish Co-authors Rostow, and Goldberg differ in nuance from Brown and Caradon who follow the age old british diplomatic formula of allowing some ambiguity in "line drawing" to assist future peace negotiators.

That said 242 is clear:

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

The map that accompanies this clause clearly shows the territories that Israel is expected to withdraw from: Territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 - Map (11 June 1997)

How can a map dated 30 years after the writing of 242 be pertinent to what happened in the writing of 242. As you say 242 is very clear in its wording and states that Israel has to leave territories occupied in 1967. It does not state which territories and when it has to leave, but it does state that mutual borders must be negotiated. In 1967 there was no Palestine, Palestinian people or nation so 2423 does nit apply to the west bank or gaza

 

[Phoenall]

nd it is based on Islamic propaganda that told lies to demonise the Jews

 

[Humanity]

Humanity, et al,

No, I do not agree.

Interpretation and semantics of Resolutions and Conventions are the issue here...

We can all debate on whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not, whether Resolutions have any impact or not.... Really doesn't matter, not in the real world!

Legal occupation or otherwise, ONLY Israel considers they have a right to occupy these territories...

It's not difficult then to draw a very clear conclusion that the world governments, even those that support Israel, consider the occupation illegal...

(COMMENT)

1. The Geneva Convention applies to the "occupation;" but, it does not speak to the issue of legality or right or justification for the occupation.

2. Israel has not said it has a "right" to occupy the territory. It says that it is out of a necessity that "occupation" is required; for a number of different reasons.

3. In the real world, the impact of the political position of other world governments is always something that is of concern and due consideration. Yet, when it come to defending the sovereign integrity of a nation, all countries operate in a utilitarian fashion (their own best interest). And while many countries will critique Israel for this, that, and the other thing, --- in the end, they remember the past criminal history of Arab Palestinians which engaged in international terrorism, and they understand that the leopard can't/doesn't change its spots; it will always be a leopard.

Your interpretation of Resolution 242 is different from what the political language of the day meant. Let the authors speak for themselves:

Rostow:
"He did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated."
"It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines."
"Which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."
"And then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land."

Goldberg:
"The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war."
"Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no."
"Whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries."

Brown:
"The resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about."
"Which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Hargrove:
"Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement."
​

The UN Security Council disagrees with you. S/RES/476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

(COMMENT)

Yes, --- another misunderstanding. It is not "me" in which you are in disagreement; but rather the people that wrote the resolution and have said what it means. UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980), is worded different. It does not clarify withdrawal issues in any meaningful way. It says:

• "Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"
​

But this was just a encouragement for the end of the hostilities. In 1980, this was more than a decade before the Oslo Accords and the exchange of agreements between Israel and the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian people).

It doesn't say anything new in concerning the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

No Rocco, I wouldn't expect you to agree....

Which is why it is far more important to not try and debate what, in reality, makes not the blindest bit of difference!

The fact remains that it is only the occupier, Israel, who believes they are not illegally occupying...

Kinda says it all really....

 

[Phoenall]

Humanity, et al,

No, I do not agree.

Interpretation and semantics of Resolutions and Conventions are the issue here...

We can all debate on whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not, whether Resolutions have any impact or not.... Really doesn't matter, not in the real world!

Legal occupation or otherwise, ONLY Israel considers they have a right to occupy these territories...

It's not difficult then to draw a very clear conclusion that the world governments, even those that support Israel, consider the occupation illegal...

(COMMENT)

1. The Geneva Convention applies to the "occupation;" but, it does not speak to the issue of legality or right or justification for the occupation.

2. Israel has not said it has a "right" to occupy the territory. It says that it is out of a necessity that "occupation" is required; for a number of different reasons.

3. In the real world, the impact of the political position of other world governments is always something that is of concern and due consideration. Yet, when it come to defending the sovereign integrity of a nation, all countries operate in a utilitarian fashion (their own best interest). And while many countries will critique Israel for this, that, and the other thing, --- in the end, they remember the past criminal history of Arab Palestinians which engaged in international terrorism, and they understand that the leopard can't/doesn't change its spots; it will always be a leopard.

Your interpretation of Resolution 242 is different from what the political language of the day meant. Let the authors speak for themselves:

Rostow:
"He did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated."
"It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines."
"Which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."
"And then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land."

Goldberg:
"The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war."
"Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no."
"Whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries."

Brown:
"The resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about."
"Which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Hargrove:
"Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement."
​

The UN Security Council disagrees with you. S/RES/476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

(COMMENT)

Yes, --- another misunderstanding. It is not "me" in which you are in disagreement; but rather the people that wrote the resolution and have said what it means. UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980), is worded different. It does not clarify withdrawal issues in any meaningful way. It says:

• "Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"
​

But this was just a encouragement for the end of the hostilities. In 1980, this was more than a decade before the Oslo Accords and the exchange of agreements between Israel and the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian people).

It doesn't say anything new in concerning the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

No Rocco, I wouldn't expect you to agree....

Which is why it is far more important to not try and debate what, in reality, makes not the blindest bit of difference!

The fact remains that it is only the occupier, Israel, who believes they are not illegally occupying...

Kinda says it all really....

And at the same time it is only islamonazi stooges that say that the occupation is illegal, disregarding international law, Geneva conventions and UN resolutions in the process

 

[Humanity]

Humanity, et al,

No, I do not agree.

Interpretation and semantics of Resolutions and Conventions are the issue here...

We can all debate on whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not, whether Resolutions have any impact or not.... Really doesn't matter, not in the real world!

Legal occupation or otherwise, ONLY Israel considers they have a right to occupy these territories...

It's not difficult then to draw a very clear conclusion that the world governments, even those that support Israel, consider the occupation illegal...

(COMMENT)

1. The Geneva Convention applies to the "occupation;" but, it does not speak to the issue of legality or right or justification for the occupation.

2. Israel has not said it has a "right" to occupy the territory. It says that it is out of a necessity that "occupation" is required; for a number of different reasons.

3. In the real world, the impact of the political position of other world governments is always something that is of concern and due consideration. Yet, when it come to defending the sovereign integrity of a nation, all countries operate in a utilitarian fashion (their own best interest). And while many countries will critique Israel for this, that, and the other thing, --- in the end, they remember the past criminal history of Arab Palestinians which engaged in international terrorism, and they understand that the leopard can't/doesn't change its spots; it will always be a leopard.

Your interpretation of Resolution 242 is different from what the political language of the day meant. Let the authors speak for themselves:

Rostow:
"He did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated."
"It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines."
"Which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."
"And then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land."

Goldberg:
"The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war."
"Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no."
"Whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries."

Brown:
"The resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about."
"Which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Hargrove:
"Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement."
​

The UN Security Council disagrees with you. S/RES/476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

(COMMENT)

Yes, --- another misunderstanding. It is not "me" in which you are in disagreement; but rather the people that wrote the resolution and have said what it means. UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980), is worded different. It does not clarify withdrawal issues in any meaningful way. It says:

• "Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"
​

But this was just a encouragement for the end of the hostilities. In 1980, this was more than a decade before the Oslo Accords and the exchange of agreements between Israel and the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian people).

It doesn't say anything new in concerning the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

No Rocco, I wouldn't expect you to agree....

Which is why it is far more important to not try and debate what, in reality, makes not the blindest bit of difference!

The fact remains that it is only the occupier, Israel, who believes they are not illegally occupying...

Kinda says it all really....

And at the same time it is only islamonazi stooges that say that the occupation is illegal, disregarding international law, Geneva conventions and UN resolutions in the process

Wow, so every country in the world is an "islamonazi stooge" now?

What a schmuck!

 

[Phoenall]

Humanity, et al,

No, I do not agree.

Interpretation and semantics of Resolutions and Conventions are the issue here...

We can all debate on whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not, whether Resolutions have any impact or not.... Really doesn't matter, not in the real world!

Legal occupation or otherwise, ONLY Israel considers they have a right to occupy these territories...

It's not difficult then to draw a very clear conclusion that the world governments, even those that support Israel, consider the occupation illegal...

(COMMENT)

1. The Geneva Convention applies to the "occupation;" but, it does not speak to the issue of legality or right or justification for the occupation.

2. Israel has not said it has a "right" to occupy the territory. It says that it is out of a necessity that "occupation" is required; for a number of different reasons.

3. In the real world, the impact of the political position of other world governments is always something that is of concern and due consideration. Yet, when it come to defending the sovereign integrity of a nation, all countries operate in a utilitarian fashion (their own best interest). And while many countries will critique Israel for this, that, and the other thing, --- in the end, they remember the past criminal history of Arab Palestinians which engaged in international terrorism, and they understand that the leopard can't/doesn't change its spots; it will always be a leopard.

Your interpretation of Resolution 242 is different from what the political language of the day meant. Let the authors speak for themselves:

Rostow:
"He did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated."
"It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines."
"Which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."
"And then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land."

Goldberg:
"The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war."
"Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no."
"Whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries."

Brown:
"The resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about."
"Which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Hargrove:
"Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement."
​

The UN Security Council disagrees with you. S/RES/476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

(COMMENT)

Yes, --- another misunderstanding. It is not "me" in which you are in disagreement; but rather the people that wrote the resolution and have said what it means. UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980), is worded different. It does not clarify withdrawal issues in any meaningful way. It says:

• "Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"
​

But this was just a encouragement for the end of the hostilities. In 1980, this was more than a decade before the Oslo Accords and the exchange of agreements between Israel and the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian people).

It doesn't say anything new in concerning the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

No Rocco, I wouldn't expect you to agree....

Which is why it is far more important to not try and debate what, in reality, makes not the blindest bit of difference!

The fact remains that it is only the occupier, Israel, who believes they are not illegally occupying...

Kinda says it all really....

And at the same time it is only islamonazi stooges that say that the occupation is illegal, disregarding international law, Geneva conventions and UN resolutions in the process

Wow, so every country in the world is an "islamonazi stooge" now?

What a schmuck!

Were did I saw that, once again you see something that is not there.

I said that it is the islamonazi stooges like YOU that say the occupation is illegal.

 

[Humanity]

Humanity, et al,

No, I do not agree.

Interpretation and semantics of Resolutions and Conventions are the issue here...

We can all debate on whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not, whether Resolutions have any impact or not.... Really doesn't matter, not in the real world!

Legal occupation or otherwise, ONLY Israel considers they have a right to occupy these territories...

It's not difficult then to draw a very clear conclusion that the world governments, even those that support Israel, consider the occupation illegal...

(COMMENT)

1. The Geneva Convention applies to the "occupation;" but, it does not speak to the issue of legality or right or justification for the occupation.

2. Israel has not said it has a "right" to occupy the territory. It says that it is out of a necessity that "occupation" is required; for a number of different reasons.

3. In the real world, the impact of the political position of other world governments is always something that is of concern and due consideration. Yet, when it come to defending the sovereign integrity of a nation, all countries operate in a utilitarian fashion (their own best interest). And while many countries will critique Israel for this, that, and the other thing, --- in the end, they remember the past criminal history of Arab Palestinians which engaged in international terrorism, and they understand that the leopard can't/doesn't change its spots; it will always be a leopard.

Your interpretation of Resolution 242 is different from what the political language of the day meant. Let the authors speak for themselves:

Rostow:
"He did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated."
"It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines."
"Which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."
"And then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land."

Goldberg:
"The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war."
"Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no."
"Whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries."

Brown:
"The resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about."
"Which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Hargrove:
"Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement."
​

The UN Security Council disagrees with you. S/RES/476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

(COMMENT)

Yes, --- another misunderstanding. It is not "me" in which you are in disagreement; but rather the people that wrote the resolution and have said what it means. UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980), is worded different. It does not clarify withdrawal issues in any meaningful way. It says:

• "Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"
​

But this was just a encouragement for the end of the hostilities. In 1980, this was more than a decade before the Oslo Accords and the exchange of agreements between Israel and the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian people).

It doesn't say anything new in concerning the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

No Rocco, I wouldn't expect you to agree....

Which is why it is far more important to not try and debate what, in reality, makes not the blindest bit of difference!

The fact remains that it is only the occupier, Israel, who believes they are not illegally occupying...

Kinda says it all really....

And at the same time it is only islamonazi stooges that say that the occupation is illegal, disregarding international law, Geneva conventions and UN resolutions in the process

Wow, so every country in the world is an "islamonazi stooge" now?

What a schmuck!

Were did I saw that, once again you see something that is not there.

I said that it is the islamonazi stooges like YOU that say the occupation is illegal.

Did you forget your meds today Phoney?

You really are not right in the head today are you...

Look, here's what YOU said....

"And at the same time it is only islamonazi stooges that say that the occupation is illegal,"

Where does it say "YOU"?

It fucking doesn't you moron!

 

[rylah]

Humanity, et al,

No, I do not agree.

Interpretation and semantics of Resolutions and Conventions are the issue here...

We can all debate on whether the Geneva Conventions apply or not, whether Resolutions have any impact or not.... Really doesn't matter, not in the real world!

Legal occupation or otherwise, ONLY Israel considers they have a right to occupy these territories...

It's not difficult then to draw a very clear conclusion that the world governments, even those that support Israel, consider the occupation illegal...

(COMMENT)

1. The Geneva Convention applies to the "occupation;" but, it does not speak to the issue of legality or right or justification for the occupation.

2. Israel has not said it has a "right" to occupy the territory. It says that it is out of a necessity that "occupation" is required; for a number of different reasons.

3. In the real world, the impact of the political position of other world governments is always something that is of concern and due consideration. Yet, when it come to defending the sovereign integrity of a nation, all countries operate in a utilitarian fashion (their own best interest). And while many countries will critique Israel for this, that, and the other thing, --- in the end, they remember the past criminal history of Arab Palestinians which engaged in international terrorism, and they understand that the leopard can't/doesn't change its spots; it will always be a leopard.

Your interpretation of Resolution 242 is different from what the political language of the day meant. Let the authors speak for themselves:

Rostow:
"He did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated."
"It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines."
"Which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."
"And then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land."

Goldberg:
"The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war."
"Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no."
"Whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries."

Brown:
"The resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about."
"Which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Hargrove:
"Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement."
​

The UN Security Council disagrees with you. S/RES/476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

(COMMENT)

Yes, --- another misunderstanding. It is not "me" in which you are in disagreement; but rather the people that wrote the resolution and have said what it means. UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980), is worded different. It does not clarify withdrawal issues in any meaningful way. It says:

• "Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"
​

But this was just a encouragement for the end of the hostilities. In 1980, this was more than a decade before the Oslo Accords and the exchange of agreements between Israel and the PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian people).

It doesn't say anything new in concerning the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

No Rocco, I wouldn't expect you to agree....

Which is why it is far more important to not try and debate what, in reality, makes not the blindest bit of difference!

The fact remains that it is only the occupier, Israel, who believes they are not illegally occupying...

Kinda says it all really....

And at the same time it is only islamonazi stooges that say that the occupation is illegal, disregarding international law, Geneva conventions and UN resolutions in the process

Wow, so every country in the world is an "islamonazi stooge" now?

What a schmuck!

c'mon DEAL with the issue. It's hard to be confronted with things You believe in Your core, in the gut. Maybe You're an idealist,that's cool, no one argues that people are suffering when they don't have to.

BUT
All Your argument is reduced now to crowd mentality. That's natural- Animus style and quiet common to ME mentality. You've been shown exactly where You've been mislead by populist agenda. Take Your time, let it sink in. Your empathy for people's suffering is very HUMANE but this argument is more on the thinking side than the feeling one.

Maybe you're right, but the argument is infantile.

 

[MJB12741]

Were did I saw that, once again you see something that is not there.

I said that it is the islamonazi stooges like YOU that say the occupation is illegal.

Did you forget your meds today Phoney?

You really are not right in the head today are you...

Look, here's what YOU said....

"And at the same time it is only islamonazi stooges that say that the occupation is illegal,"

Where does it say "YOU"?

It fucking doesn't you moron!

It doesn't need to as you know that you are seen as an islamonazi stooge. But once again you use islamonazi disinformation tactics to imply that others have a medical problem that alters their mental ability when you are being shown to be a complete idiot and have lost the argument.

What a schmuck!

SCORE:

Phoenall 17

Humanity 0

How do you work that out?

Phoney doesn't even know what he is writing....

And then forgets what he has written 5 minutes later!

I guess you don't either... Unless it's via some kind of zionut apologist code you use?

Consider the facts. The Arab countries surrounding Israel united to annihilate Israel & requested the Palestinians to leave until the mission was accomplished. Israel defended itself & captured land in the process, some of which Israel will never return so as to prevent such a repeat of 1967. So who created the Palestinian refugee problem? And who should provide for them a Palestinian State?

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

If you got an alert that one of your posts has been deleted -- you're probably next in line for a warning.

 

[Humanity]

Did you forget your meds today Phoney?

You really are not right in the head today are you...

Look, here's what YOU said....

"And at the same time it is only islamonazi stooges that say that the occupation is illegal,"

Where does it say "YOU"?

It fucking doesn't you moron!

It doesn't need to as you know that you are seen as an islamonazi stooge. But once again you use islamonazi disinformation tactics to imply that others have a medical problem that alters their mental ability when you are being shown to be a complete idiot and have lost the argument.

What a schmuck!

SCORE:

Phoenall 17

Humanity 0

How do you work that out?

Phoney doesn't even know what he is writing....

And then forgets what he has written 5 minutes later!

I guess you don't either... Unless it's via some kind of zionut apologist code you use?

Consider the facts. The Arab countries surrounding Israel united to annihilate Israel & requested the Palestinians to leave until the mission was accomplished. Israel defended itself & captured land in the process, some of which Israel will never return so as to prevent such a repeat of 1967. So who created the Palestinian refugee problem? And who should provide for them a Palestinian State?

Consider the facts...

There is only ONE country in the world who considers the occupied territories legal... That is the occupier!

Even Israel's most vocal supporters do not consider occupied territories legal...

Those are the facts...

End of debate...

Unless you are an idiot of course then, please, carry on!

 

[Phoenall]

It doesn't need to as you know that you are seen as an islamonazi stooge. But once again you use islamonazi disinformation tactics to imply that others have a medical problem that alters their mental ability when you are being shown to be a complete idiot and have lost the argument.

What a schmuck!

SCORE:

Phoenall 17

Humanity 0

How do you work that out?

Phoney doesn't even know what he is writing....

And then forgets what he has written 5 minutes later!

I guess you don't either... Unless it's via some kind of zionut apologist code you use?

Consider the facts. The Arab countries surrounding Israel united to annihilate Israel & requested the Palestinians to leave until the mission was accomplished. Israel defended itself & captured land in the process, some of which Israel will never return so as to prevent such a repeat of 1967. So who created the Palestinian refugee problem? And who should provide for them a Palestinian State?

Consider the facts...

There is only ONE country in the world who considers the occupied territories legal... That is the occupier!

Even Israel's most vocal supporters do not consider occupied territories legal...

Those are the facts...

End of debate...

Unless you are an idiot of course then, please, carry on!

LINK?

LINK?

LINK?

NO your fantasy

What debate, you don't know how to debate

Is that why you carry on ?

 

[Humanity]

What a schmuck!

SCORE:

Phoenall 17

Humanity 0

How do you work that out?

Phoney doesn't even know what he is writing....

And then forgets what he has written 5 minutes later!

I guess you don't either... Unless it's via some kind of zionut apologist code you use?

Consider the facts. The Arab countries surrounding Israel united to annihilate Israel & requested the Palestinians to leave until the mission was accomplished. Israel defended itself & captured land in the process, some of which Israel will never return so as to prevent such a repeat of 1967. So who created the Palestinian refugee problem? And who should provide for them a Palestinian State?

Consider the facts...

There is only ONE country in the world who considers the occupied territories legal... That is the occupier!

Even Israel's most vocal supporters do not consider occupied territories legal...

Those are the facts...

End of debate...

Unless you are an idiot of course then, please, carry on!

LINK?

LINK?

LINK?

NO your fantasy

What debate, you don't know how to debate

Is that why you carry on ?

Google it dummy!

 

[Phoenall]

SCORE:

Phoenall 17

Humanity 0

How do you work that out?

Phoney doesn't even know what he is writing....

And then forgets what he has written 5 minutes later!

I guess you don't either... Unless it's via some kind of zionut apologist code you use?

Consider the facts. The Arab countries surrounding Israel united to annihilate Israel & requested the Palestinians to leave until the mission was accomplished. Israel defended itself & captured land in the process, some of which Israel will never return so as to prevent such a repeat of 1967. So who created the Palestinian refugee problem? And who should provide for them a Palestinian State?

Consider the facts...

There is only ONE country in the world who considers the occupied territories legal... That is the occupier!

Even Israel's most vocal supporters do not consider occupied territories legal...

Those are the facts...

End of debate...

Unless you are an idiot of course then, please, carry on!

LINK?

LINK?

LINK?

NO your fantasy

What debate, you don't know how to debate

Is that why you carry on ?

Google it dummy!

No you made the claims so you have to provide the evidence, or have you been caught wrong footed again ?

 

[Humanity]

How do you work that out?

Phoney doesn't even know what he is writing....

And then forgets what he has written 5 minutes later!

I guess you don't either... Unless it's via some kind of zionut apologist code you use?

Consider the facts. The Arab countries surrounding Israel united to annihilate Israel & requested the Palestinians to leave until the mission was accomplished. Israel defended itself & captured land in the process, some of which Israel will never return so as to prevent such a repeat of 1967. So who created the Palestinian refugee problem? And who should provide for them a Palestinian State?

Consider the facts...

There is only ONE country in the world who considers the occupied territories legal... That is the occupier!

Even Israel's most vocal supporters do not consider occupied territories legal...

Those are the facts...

End of debate...

Unless you are an idiot of course then, please, carry on!

LINK?

LINK?

LINK?

NO your fantasy

What debate, you don't know how to debate

Is that why you carry on ?

Google it dummy!

No you made the claims so you have to provide the evidence, or have you been caught wrong footed again ?

Hahahaha like you DON'T!

Here, lazy shit....

Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

Consider the facts. The Arab countries surrounding Israel united to annihilate Israel & requested the Palestinians to leave until the mission was accomplished. Israel defended itself & captured land in the process, some of which Israel will never return so as to prevent such a repeat of 1967. So who created the Palestinian refugee problem? And who should provide for them a Palestinian State?

Consider the facts...

There is only ONE country in the world who considers the occupied territories legal... That is the occupier!

Even Israel's most vocal supporters do not consider occupied territories legal...

Those are the facts...

End of debate...

Unless you are an idiot of course then, please, carry on!

LINK?

LINK?

LINK?

NO your fantasy

What debate, you don't know how to debate

Is that why you carry on ?

Google it dummy!

No you made the claims so you have to provide the evidence, or have you been caught wrong footed again ?

Hahahaha like you DON'T!

Here, lazy shit....

Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where does it say that the occupation is illegal as you claimed ?


And the source has been banned from wiki


The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log·suspected sockpuppets·confirmed sockpuppets)



User:Marsden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So try again , you never know you just might get it right one of these times

 

[mudwhistle]

More & more Gazans are speaking out against the brutalities of Hamas on the Palestinian people. Although these attrocities are hard to forgive, it was after all the Palestinian people themselves who elected Hamas to govern them. Thus just how sorry can we feel for the victimized Palestinians?

Gazans Speak Out: Hamas War Crimes

They sound like Democrat voters.

Maybe that's where Obama learned how to steal elections......from Hamas.

 

[MJB12741]

It doesn't need to as you know that you are seen as an islamonazi stooge. But once again you use islamonazi disinformation tactics to imply that others have a medical problem that alters their mental ability when you are being shown to be a complete idiot and have lost the argument.

What a schmuck!

SCORE:

Phoenall 17

Humanity 0

How do you work that out?

Phoney doesn't even know what he is writing....

And then forgets what he has written 5 minutes later!

I guess you don't either... Unless it's via some kind of zionut apologist code you use?

Consider the facts. The Arab countries surrounding Israel united to annihilate Israel & requested the Palestinians to leave until the mission was accomplished. Israel defended itself & captured land in the process, some of which Israel will never return so as to prevent such a repeat of 1967. So who created the Palestinian refugee problem? And who should provide for them a Palestinian State?

Consider the facts...

There is only ONE country in the world who considers the occupied territories legal... That is the occupier!

Even Israel's most vocal supporters do not consider occupied territories legal...

Those are the facts...

End of debate...

Unless you are an idiot of course then, please, carry on!

Had it not been for the surrounding Arab countries uniting to annihilate Israel & thus making Palestinians refugees in their mission, there would not have been any additional land for Israel to "occupy." Do you think maybe the Arab countries owe the Palestinians an apology & should grnant them a right of return back to their native homelands?