BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,325
Reaction score
11,942
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
My opposing view is thatyou believe that by the time the Armistice was put in place, the Arab Palestinians had more territorial control then they did before the 1948 conflict started.
So you are back to the Palestinians have no rights canard.

Other than being under foreign military control, you have not explained how that happened.
Palestinians have rights.......but no territory.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,451
Reaction score
2,783
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: You cannot use that "Palestinians have no rights canard" with me. That is the old "appeal to emotion."

My opposing view is that you believe that by the time the Armistice was put in place, the Arab Palestinians had more territorial control then they did before the 1948 conflict started.
So you are back to the Palestinians have no rights canard.

Other than being under foreign military control, you have not explained how that happened.
(COMMENT)


I recommend that you listen to Toddsterpatriot, comments.

Just what in the hell do you think "Having a Right" is suppose to get you? The UDHR (A/RES/3/217 A) is not binding. The Arab Palestinians have the Civil and Political Rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which entered into force 23 March 1976. That is almost a decade after the Six-Day War (1967). But even if the CCPR was available in 1948, what particular Article is violated.

What do the Arab Palestinians have without the "Right" and what do the Arab Palestinians have with the "Right?" What "RIGHT" is that? What is the difference? What is being violate?

Foreign Military Expeditions have had a role in every territorial advancement for 4000 years. The Arab League tried (unsuccessfully) to eliminate the establishment of the Jewish National Home by military force. The Arab Higher Committee said as much in their threat.

Palestinians have rights.......but no territory.
(COMMENT)

Yes → Right on the money. In 1948 there was only the concept of Universal Human Rights (not law).

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,324
Reaction score
2,639
Points
1,815
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: You cannot use that "Palestinians have no rights canard" with me. That is the old "appeal to emotion."

My opposing view is that you believe that by the time the Armistice was put in place, the Arab Palestinians had more territorial control then they did before the 1948 conflict started.
So you are back to the Palestinians have no rights canard.

Other than being under foreign military control, you have not explained how that happened.
(COMMENT)


I recommend that you listen to Toddsterpatriot, comments.

Just what in the hell do you think "Having a Right" is suppose to get you? The UDHR (A/RES/3/217 A) is not binding. The Arab Palestinians have the Civil and Political Rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which entered into force 23 March 1976. That is almost a decade after the Six-Day War (1967). But even if the CCPR was available in 1948, what particular Article is violated.

What do the Arab Palestinians have without the "Right" and what do the Arab Palestinians have with the "Right?" What "RIGHT" is that? What is the difference? What is being violate?

Foreign Military Expeditions have had a role in every territorial advancement for 4000 years. The Arab League tried (unsuccessfully) to eliminate the establishment of the Jewish National Home by military force. The Arab Higher Committee said as much in their threat.

Palestinians have rights.......but no territory.
(COMMENT)

Yes → Right on the money. In 1948 there was only the concept of Universal Human Rights (not law).

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,325
Reaction score
11,942
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: You cannot use that "Palestinians have no rights canard" with me. That is the old "appeal to emotion."

My opposing view is that you believe that by the time the Armistice was put in place, the Arab Palestinians had more territorial control then they did before the 1948 conflict started.
So you are back to the Palestinians have no rights canard.

Other than being under foreign military control, you have not explained how that happened.
(COMMENT)


I recommend that you listen to Toddsterpatriot, comments.

Just what in the hell do you think "Having a Right" is suppose to get you? The UDHR (A/RES/3/217 A) is not binding. The Arab Palestinians have the Civil and Political Rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which entered into force 23 March 1976. That is almost a decade after the Six-Day War (1967). But even if the CCPR was available in 1948, what particular Article is violated.

What do the Arab Palestinians have without the "Right" and what do the Arab Palestinians have with the "Right?" What "RIGHT" is that? What is the difference? What is being violate?

Foreign Military Expeditions have had a role in every territorial advancement for 4000 years. The Arab League tried (unsuccessfully) to eliminate the establishment of the Jewish National Home by military force. The Arab Higher Committee said as much in their threat.

Palestinians have rights.......but no territory.
(COMMENT)

Yes → Right on the money. In 1948 there was only the concept of Universal Human Rights (not law).

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?

You should post that portion of the charter.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,324
Reaction score
2,639
Points
1,815
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: You cannot use that "Palestinians have no rights canard" with me. That is the old "appeal to emotion."

My opposing view is that you believe that by the time the Armistice was put in place, the Arab Palestinians had more territorial control then they did before the 1948 conflict started.
So you are back to the Palestinians have no rights canard.

Other than being under foreign military control, you have not explained how that happened.
(COMMENT)


I recommend that you listen to Toddsterpatriot, comments.

Just what in the hell do you think "Having a Right" is suppose to get you? The UDHR (A/RES/3/217 A) is not binding. The Arab Palestinians have the Civil and Political Rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which entered into force 23 March 1976. That is almost a decade after the Six-Day War (1967). But even if the CCPR was available in 1948, what particular Article is violated.

What do the Arab Palestinians have without the "Right" and what do the Arab Palestinians have with the "Right?" What "RIGHT" is that? What is the difference? What is being violate?

Foreign Military Expeditions have had a role in every territorial advancement for 4000 years. The Arab League tried (unsuccessfully) to eliminate the establishment of the Jewish National Home by military force. The Arab Higher Committee said as much in their threat.

Palestinians have rights.......but no territory.
(COMMENT)

Yes → Right on the money. In 1948 there was only the concept of Universal Human Rights (not law).

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?

You should post that portion of the charter.
Article 2
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,325
Reaction score
11,942
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: You cannot use that "Palestinians have no rights canard" with me. That is the old "appeal to emotion."

My opposing view is that you believe that by the time the Armistice was put in place, the Arab Palestinians had more territorial control then they did before the 1948 conflict started.
So you are back to the Palestinians have no rights canard.

Other than being under foreign military control, you have not explained how that happened.
(COMMENT)


I recommend that you listen to Toddsterpatriot, comments.

Just what in the hell do you think "Having a Right" is suppose to get you? The UDHR (A/RES/3/217 A) is not binding. The Arab Palestinians have the Civil and Political Rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which entered into force 23 March 1976. That is almost a decade after the Six-Day War (1967). But even if the CCPR was available in 1948, what particular Article is violated.

What do the Arab Palestinians have without the "Right" and what do the Arab Palestinians have with the "Right?" What "RIGHT" is that? What is the difference? What is being violate?

Foreign Military Expeditions have had a role in every territorial advancement for 4000 years. The Arab League tried (unsuccessfully) to eliminate the establishment of the Jewish National Home by military force. The Arab Higher Committee said as much in their threat.

Palestinians have rights.......but no territory.
(COMMENT)

Yes → Right on the money. In 1948 there was only the concept of Universal Human Rights (not law).

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?

You should post that portion of the charter.
Article 2
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Palestine was never a state. Never had any territory.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,324
Reaction score
2,639
Points
1,815
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: You cannot use that "Palestinians have no rights canard" with me. That is the old "appeal to emotion."

My opposing view is that you believe that by the time the Armistice was put in place, the Arab Palestinians had more territorial control then they did before the 1948 conflict started.
So you are back to the Palestinians have no rights canard.

Other than being under foreign military control, you have not explained how that happened.
(COMMENT)


I recommend that you listen to Toddsterpatriot, comments.

Just what in the hell do you think "Having a Right" is suppose to get you? The UDHR (A/RES/3/217 A) is not binding. The Arab Palestinians have the Civil and Political Rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which entered into force 23 March 1976. That is almost a decade after the Six-Day War (1967). But even if the CCPR was available in 1948, what particular Article is violated.

What do the Arab Palestinians have without the "Right" and what do the Arab Palestinians have with the "Right?" What "RIGHT" is that? What is the difference? What is being violate?

Foreign Military Expeditions have had a role in every territorial advancement for 4000 years. The Arab League tried (unsuccessfully) to eliminate the establishment of the Jewish National Home by military force. The Arab Higher Committee said as much in their threat.

Palestinians have rights.......but no territory.
(COMMENT)

Yes → Right on the money. In 1948 there was only the concept of Universal Human Rights (not law).

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?

You should post that portion of the charter.
Article 2
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Palestine was never a state. Never had any territory.
You wouldn't have a link for that, would you?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,325
Reaction score
11,942
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: You cannot use that "Palestinians have no rights canard" with me. That is the old "appeal to emotion."

My opposing view is that you believe that by the time the Armistice was put in place, the Arab Palestinians had more territorial control then they did before the 1948 conflict started.
So you are back to the Palestinians have no rights canard.

Other than being under foreign military control, you have not explained how that happened.
(COMMENT)


I recommend that you listen to Toddsterpatriot, comments.

Just what in the hell do you think "Having a Right" is suppose to get you? The UDHR (A/RES/3/217 A) is not binding. The Arab Palestinians have the Civil and Political Rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which entered into force 23 March 1976. That is almost a decade after the Six-Day War (1967). But even if the CCPR was available in 1948, what particular Article is violated.

What do the Arab Palestinians have without the "Right" and what do the Arab Palestinians have with the "Right?" What "RIGHT" is that? What is the difference? What is being violate?

Foreign Military Expeditions have had a role in every territorial advancement for 4000 years. The Arab League tried (unsuccessfully) to eliminate the establishment of the Jewish National Home by military force. The Arab Higher Committee said as much in their threat.

Palestinians have rights.......but no territory.
(COMMENT)

Yes → Right on the money. In 1948 there was only the concept of Universal Human Rights (not law).

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?
What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?

You should post that portion of the charter.
Article 2
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Palestine was never a state. Never had any territory.
You wouldn't have a link for that, would you?
If you have a link disproving my claim......post it up buttercup!

RoccoR........Yes → Right on the money. In 1948 there was only the concept of Universal Human Rights (not law).

PF..........What about the right against aggression as stipulated in the UN Charter?

Where was there aggression, in 1948, against the territorial integrity of a Palestinian state? Link?
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,451
Reaction score
2,783
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: This matter is about interpretation again.


Article 2
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
(COMMENT)
1. Whatever you call the Ramallah Leadership, it is NOT a member of the UN. It has NON-Member Observer Status.​
2. Article 8 bis • Crime of Aggression (ICC) "means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nation."​
3. Within the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, which was established (self-determination - allotted to it by the partition plan) Israel had Independence before the Arab League Forces departed their respective sovereignties and entered the territory - NOT their own.​

While the Arab States claimed to be entering the territory to assist the Arab Palestinians, in actuality, the members of the Arab League set-up an Occupation and eventually Annexed the West Bank; and established a Military Governorship in the Gaza Strip.

If there was a Crime of Aggression (ICC), it was not on the part of the Israelis.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
27,260
Reaction score
12,313
Points
1,100
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
gaza-rockets-640x400.jpg
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,451
Reaction score
2,783
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: It was a "legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state."
(See Memorandum "A" to A/AC.21/UK/42 25 February 1948) In addition to the Memorandum "A" link, there are three more links in the body of the Commentary.)

Palestine was never a state. Never had any territory.
You wouldn't have a link for that, would you?
(COMMENT)

"Prior to the adoption of A/RES/67/19 (4 December 2012), Palestine was treated as an ENTITY for United Nations purposes. Palestine was not identified as a State of Country - nor could its authorities be identified as a government. Pursuant to A/RES/43/177 (15 December 1988) the designation of "Palestine" was used in place of "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations." (See Memorandum 11 December 2012)

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
13,070
Reaction score
2,514
Points
290
"Lie" is a very poor choice of words. It should be an objective and educated perspective that should be considered.
Israel claims that it won Palestinian land when it won a defensive war with Palestine's neighboring Arab states.

Lie is accurate. In face lies would be more accurate because there are several.

1) None of those Arab states attacked Israel.

2) The war was called by a UN Security Council armistice resolution. Nobody won that war.

3) Winning Palestinians land in a war with its neighbors is a unique legal concept. I don't see anything legal here.
Nobody claims that.

But the length Jihadi degenerates will go to excuse their defeat,
with all kind of nonesense about "no one won that war",
and immediately complain about Israel winning.

And all that to convince they're not losers...

Pure cringe.
 

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
13,070
Reaction score
2,514
Points
290
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are trying to win a horse race with a miniature pony.


Israel won all of its wars with the Arabs. However, the Arab-Israeli Conflict is ongoing and has serious diplomatic implications for non-involved countries.

An International Armed Conflict has no real winners or losers. You can characterize the outcome in any fashion you wish. But the outside observers have eyes. They can form their own opinion.
OK, but Israel claims that it won land in a defensive war.
That is a lie.
(COMMENT)

"Lie" is a very poor choice of words. It should be an objective and educated perspective that should be considered.

The Arab-Palestinians have an outsider's perspective since they were not a party to the conflict initially or a contributor of consequence to major follow-on conflicts until the introduction of the quasi-political Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters. The Arab-Palestinians were, at one-time, victims; but, are now subjecting themselves to self-inflicted injuries
(on a recurring basis).

✦ The War of Independence (1947-49)
✦ The Sinai Campaign of 1956
✦ The Six-Day War (June 1967)
✦ The Yom Kippur War (October 1973)

IF you can review the history and honestly say that the Arab-Palestinians are better-off today THEN they were in May 1948, so be it... Believe what you will. That is your perspective...The Arab-Palestinians often give the appearance of evolving into a cult-like practice and engage in self-sacrifice and mortification → act (many times) on the assumption of monetary reward (Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund) and orgy participation in the afterlife. But they do not act in the name of peace, good order, and security for their people.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
If You can review the history honestly, You cannot deny agency to Arab-Palestinians.

Their agenda is to excuse every kind of action
and claim to never have or had any agency.

Either way we look at their history,
both from the perspective of Arab expansionism
or accepting their narrative of as distinct local group,

can they as a collective claim to have no agency,
and specifically the aggressors, either locally as a collective,
or as part of the bigger Arab nation; Either locally expelling Jews from all their holy cities,
or as a bigger collective when pogroms followed all over the Arab controlled Caliphate lands.

Many Arab tribes that expelled Jewish communities from Arab controlled lands
were attempting to settle the land and fight Jews they've just expelled from North Africa.

With all that said, yes they're much better off than they were a 100 years ago,
much better than most Arabs in the middle east actually.

And I'm not even referring to UAE, Bahrain or even Qatar, any of rich Gulf countries,
just listen to what they say in Sudan, what Lebanon's 1st lady says, what Syrians say.

They all mention that their average citizens lead a much more modest standard of life,
than the mansions and the sports cars they see on Arabic al-Jazeerah channels
of Pali Arabs flaunting their riches in front of hungry Lebanese.

 
Last edited:

rylah

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
13,070
Reaction score
2,514
Points
290

In a letter released yesterday, 452 civil society groups – unions, movements, political parties and organizations – from tens of countries around the world called on the United Nations General Assembly and its Member States, currently meeting in New York, to investigate Israeli apartheid and to impose targeted sanctions to stop Israeli apartheid and illegal annexation of Palestinian land.

The letter marks the launch of a global public campaign calling on the UN to assume its responsibility for the investigation and eradication of Israel’s apartheid regime, similar to the role it had played in ending apartheid in Southern Africa.

The global letter cites “the mounting recognition of Israel’s maintenance of an apartheid regime over the Palestinian people.” It notes that 47 independent human rights experts within the United Nations stated that the Israeli government plans to illegally annex large parts of the occupied West Bank would constitute “a vision of a 21st-century apartheid.”

Blah, blah, blah.

Why do you want to encourage the Palestinians to keep starting fights they keep losing? How many of them are you willing to see die, to destroy Israel?
Losing? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Israel keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Well, its lies get bigger and bigger.
That's the growing desperation talking, of those who hate Israel,
to hide behind ever more ridiculous strawman fallacies.

Just like this thread,
the UN didn't conclude what the title says.

But anytime I'll ask - why none of the Arab Palestinian governments,
ever allowed an African into their parliament?

and there will be only crickets...
 
Last edited:

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,324
Reaction score
2,639
Points
1,815
2. Article 8 bis • Crime of Aggression (ICC) "means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nation."
Bingo! :113::113::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
1. Whatever you call the Ramallah Leadership, it is NOT a member of the UN. It has NON-Member Observer Status.
So? Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state until then?

Hmmm?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,319
Reaction score
4,464
Points
1,130
The Arab-Palestinians have an outsider's perspective since they were not a party to the conflict...
Indeed, how can Palestine consistently lose land in someone else's war.

Another of my never answered questions.
The Pals ere occupying Turkish controlled land.

What land did the Pals lose?

link?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,319
Reaction score
4,464
Points
1,130
2. Article 8 bis • Crime of Aggression (ICC) "means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nation."
Bingo! :113::113::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
1. Whatever you call the Ramallah Leadership, it is NOT a member of the UN. It has NON-Member Observer Status.
So? Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state until then?

Hmmm?
Indeed, a meaningless comparison.
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,324
Reaction score
2,639
Points
1,815
3. Within the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, which was established (self-determination - allotted to it by the partition plan) Israel had Independence before the Arab League Forces departed their respective sovereignties and entered the territory - NOT their own.
Dodge! The Arab states did not invade Israel.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,451
Reaction score
2,783
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, et al,

BLUF: You are mixing apples and oranges. You changed the subject of the discussion. Look at what I wrote.

2. Article 8 bis • Crime of Aggression (ICC) "means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nation."
1. Whatever you call the Ramallah Leadership, it is NOT a member of the UN. It has NON-Member Observer Status.
So? Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2003. Does that mean it was not a state until then?
Hmmm?
(COMMENT)

We were discussing the definition of "Aggression." We were not discussing the Confederation of Helvetia (Switzerland).

We were not talking about "Statehood." (You change the subject and then challenge the comment on an absurd issue.)

A "state" does not require Membership in the UN.

Recognition is not a requirement to be a "state." But there must be a defined territory for which the Government has sovereign control.

SIGIL PAIR.png
Most Respectfully,
R
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top