Can Paris summit save two-state solution?

[P F Tinmore]

If that were true, the the committee that defines Colonization (Special Committee 24) would have it on the listing to address [Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT)]:

This is assuming that the UN is perfect. You and I and most everybody else knows that this is far from true.

 

[Hollie]

You appear to be suggesting that sovereignty comes after a state exists but this is seldom the case when it comes to a demand for the right of self-determination.

Rocco has this thing about sovereign states. Actually sovereignty belongs to the people. (The people of the place. Not people from someplace else.) Governments and states are the result of the exercise of their sovereignty not prerequisites. Preventing people the right to exercise their sovereignty is a crime against those people.

"Preventing people the right to exercise their sovereignty is a crime against those people."


Interesting comment considering the wars of (hoped for) annihilation waged by Arabs Moslems against Israel, the Hamas charter, islamist ideology, etc.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

There has to be some land swaps to account for population shifts. The 1967 lines aren't sacrosanct. Anyway Eloy, what should be the situation with Joseph's and Rachel's Tombs and the Cave of Machpelah (where Abraham lies)? Joseph's Tomb has already been set on fire by the Arabs many times.

All the Jewish Holy Places stay in Israel. I wouldn't risk any of them in Arab Muslim hands.

Well then, goodbye to Palestine! Hebron, Bethlehem and Nablus, where those holy places are located, are its 3 largest cities.

 

[Hollie]

The whole idea that Israel can't be both Jewish and "democratic" (really meaning a place where minorities have equal rights) is just typecasting in order to demonize Israel, and in particular, force Israelis to defend themselves against a false charge.

Of course Israel can be both Jewish and ensure equal treatment for all her minorities. She already DOES that. Just because Muslims can't do that, is no reason for anyone to assume that the Jewish people can't.

Israel does it now because the Arabs are 20% of the population. But if Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza, the Arabs would be 50% of the population, or maybe even higher. They could then vote, G-d forbid, to turn Israel into Palestine.

There is both past and recent history to identify what happens to minority religious groups / ethnicities under majority Islamist control. An entire portion of the globe (the Islamist Middle East) has been nearly purged of competing minority religious / ethnic groups.

 

[fanger]

The whole idea that Israel can't be both Jewish and "democratic" (really meaning a place where minorities have equal rights) is just typecasting in order to demonize Israel, and in particular, force Israelis to defend themselves against a false charge.

Of course Israel can be both Jewish and ensure equal treatment for all her minorities. She already DOES that. Just because Muslims can't do that, is no reason for anyone to assume that the Jewish people can't.

Israel does it now because the Arabs are 20% of the population. But if Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza, the Arabs would be 50% of the population, or maybe even higher. They could then vote, G-d forbid, to turn Israel into Palestine.

There is both past and recent history to identify what happens to minority religious groups / ethnicities under majority Islamist control. An entire portion of the globe (the Islamist Middle East) has been nearly purged of competing minority religious / ethnic groups.

But not Iran

 

[fanger]

2017, January. Paris. Middle East Conference. Time for Israel to decide whether it is serious being a member of the international community or whether it chooses the path to pariah status, building illegal colonies on stolen land, flouting international law and disrespecting world opinion. Such pigfaced arrogance is bound to have negative consequences.

The Machiavellian approach
There are two types of lawyers. The first type understands that the practice of law is perfectly simple since the rules are laid down as clearly as possible, those who draw them up are in general terms competent and have an eye for detail, taking care not only to word the documents carefully but also to punctuate them adequately. The second type is a cynical, manipulative figure who understands that rules and laws are made to be broken and it is just a question of how much money is used or power exerted to reach the Machiavellian goal.
In signing international agreements and conventions, Israel is bound by their terms, and the very notion that a State can sign a treaty and then weasel its way out, accepting some of the terms and not others, is not only sheer, shitfaced arrogance but also an insult to the international community.

The fact is that Israel signed the FourthGeneva Convention of 1949, which basically prohibits countries from moving populations into territories occupied during a war. Hence the colonies which Israel is building outside its original borders are illegal, period. It is perfectly simple. So simple, indeed, that the United Nations Security Council, whose deliberations are legally binding, has stated that the terms of the Convention apply. Also, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High
Contracting Parties to the Convention. Apart from this, several UN Resolutions have declared the Israeli settlements built on stolen land are illegal.


Israel, the chosen thief
Israel, of course, thinks it is above international law, or for that matter any law. It does what it wants, when, where and how it wants because it knows that the Jewish Lobby in the USA is so powerful that it pulls Washington's strings and therefore Washington's sickening Poodles in Europe will jump obediently and abstain when Washington vetoes UN Resolutions condemning Israel.
The result is that Israel continues to steal land which does not belong to it, continues to bulldoze Palestinian homes, continues to dessecrate Palestinian cemeteries, continues to expropriate Palestinian farms, dispossessing Palestinians, splitting up families, seizing land and property from children whose grandparents held the rights.

And what does the international community do? Nothing. It is fitting that this Conference is held in Paris, the capital city of one of the countries which started this mess (along with its bedmaster, the UK) by drawing lines on maps.

When Israel gets real, when Israel admits that it has to follow the norms of international law to be wholly accepted into the international community, and in so doing moving back to the borders drawn up in 1948, Israel will be accepted into the hearts and minds of the international community. Netanyahu is too emotionally stupid to realize this, as is most of the Knesset.

Time for a new generation of Jews to work alongside Jews against Zionism and together with the hearts and minds of the international community. To date what has ruled Israel is those in legion with the Devil, claiming the Jews are the chosen people (how racist does it get?) and disregarding the norms of international law.
Paris Middle East Conference: Time for Israel to decide
good bye israel

 

[rhodescholar]

(COMMENT)

The idea behind self-determination is at issue. The people of any given state, once the sovereignty is established, have the right to determine the nature and character of their country.

• Israel wants to be a Jewish State; just as it was called in Part II Boundaries - Section B (Jewish State) A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947. Just because it is a "Jewish State" does not mean that the "Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all." Israel is more diverse that either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank.
​

​

Another instance where scumbags like "eloy" and his fellow trash fall apart:

1) these assholes demand self-determination for the fakestinians - but NEVER for the jews, or for non-muslims anywhere in the mideast.

2) they whine that Israel cannot be allowed to be called "the jewish state" but are silent about the ISLAMIC republic of iran, the ISLAMIC Republic of Afghanistan, the ISLAMIC Republic of Mauritani, and the ISLAMIC Republic of Pakistan, etc.

3) they whine about Israel but are silent about islam being the official "religion" of many of the 57 muslim-majority countries

 

[rhodescholar]

Israel does it now because the Arabs are 20% of the population. But if Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza, the Arabs would be 50% of the population, or maybe even higher. They could then vote, G-d forbid, to turn Israel into Palestine.

They will annex both, and do what they've been accused of for decades - they will finally remove the arab muslims and send them back to their native countries - what they should have done in 1967 when the arabs were threatening and attempting to mass murder all of the jews.

The world and the muslim filth will be "aflame" for about 5 years, and then everything will go back to normal.

 

[rhodescholar]

Well then, goodbye to Palestine! Hebron, Bethlehem and Nablus, where those holy places are located, are its 3 largest cities.

They won't be so large when the muslims are removed.

 

[Shusha]

If that were true, the the committee that defines Colonization (Special Committee 24) would have it on the listing to address [Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT)]:

This is assuming that the UN is perfect. You and I and most everybody else knows that this is far from true.

Funny how the UN suddenly becomes "not perfect" when it rules against Team Palestine.

 

[rhodescholar]

But not Iran

Really c-nt idiot?

Ever heard of the Bahai, the Zoroastrians, or the iranian arabs? You're waaaaaay too fucking stupid to even breathe.

UN panel criticizes Iran’s repression of minorities - Bahá'í World News Service

Iran’s Repression Targets Kurds, Other Minorities

 

[Shusha]

But not Iran

You do realize there are only 8,000 Jews left in Iran, yes? And that there are an entirely seperate set of laws for the Jews of Iran compared to the Muslims, yes? That the Jews in Iran are legally discriminated against, yes?

 

[P F Tinmore]

If that were true, the the committee that defines Colonization (Special Committee 24) would have it on the listing to address [Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT)]:

This is assuming that the UN is perfect. You and I and most everybody else knows that this is far from true.

Funny how the UN suddenly becomes "not perfect" when it rules against Team Palestine.

The UN has always done squat when it comes to Palestine. Sometimes they will pass a resolution then they will throw on the shelf to collect dust.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

Well, you are confusing types of sovereignty. There is, of course the sovereignty of a person that is associated with the characteristic of adulthood and the ability to make decisions about one’s destiny. But the Sovereignty we are talking about here is a matter of authority; it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority.

Statehood is not just the matter of magic, Poof! It’s a state. Ad one of the characteristic of a State is territory; which is not just a matter of saying, that territory is mine. It is a matter of extending sovereign authority over it.

The holder of sovereignty is superior to all authorities under its purview. Supremacy, too, is endemic to modernity. During the Middle Ages, manifold authorities held some sort of legal warrant for their authority, whether feudal, canonical, or otherwise, but very rarely did such warrant confer supremacy.

A final ingredient of sovereignty is territoriality, also a feature of political authority in modernity. Territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined. It specifies that their membership derives from their residence within borders. It is a powerful principle, for it defines membership in a way that may not correspond with identity. The borders of a sovereign state may not at all circumscribe a “people” or a “nation,” and may in fact encompass several of these identities, as national self-determination and irredentist movements make evident. It is rather by simple virtue of their location within geographic borders that people belong to a state and fall under the authority of its ruler. It is within a geographic territory that modern sovereigns are supremely authoritative.
SOURCE: 1. A Definition of Sovereignty
​

Or, in thumbnail terms: “Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy. Derived from the Latin term superanus through the French term souveraineté, sovereignty was originally meant to be the equivalent of supreme power. However, in practice it often has departed from this traditional meaning.” (WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica )

State sovereignty legal definition of State sovereignty
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty
Definition of State sovereignty in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. What is State sovereignty?
​

Your post is too long for me to answer.

In your comment you wrote:
"The idea behind self-determination is at issue. The people of any given state, once the sovereignty is established, have the right to determine the nature and character of their country."

You appear to be suggesting that sovereignty comes after a state exists but this is seldom the case when it comes to a demand for the right of self-determination. People who call for self-determination are usually a minority in a state. It is not only a state that has sovereignty but also a people.

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) can claim this or that is their territory. But their claim is somewhat illegitimate in that the HoAP never had sovereignty over the territory in question.

In order to say that a state exists ... it is enough that this territory has a sufficient consistency, even though its boundaries have not yet been accurately delimited, and that the state actually exercises independent public authority over that territory. (Law and National Security:Selected Issues Pnina Sharvit Baruch and Anat Kurz, Editors)

Rocco has this thing about sovereign states. Actually sovereignty belongs to the people. (The people of the place. Not people from someplace else.) Governments and states are the result of the exercise of their sovereignty not prerequisites. Preventing people the right to exercise their sovereignty is a crime against those people.

(COMMENT)

I think you are confused as to what "sovereignty" mean, relative to a political entity; or what it means when the say "sovereignty in person" relative to a state.

The bottom line is, that if an authority (or would be authority) cannot claim authority over the territory, it is not a state. If someone else exercises authority over the territory, then it was never theirs to begin with.

In fact, with the exception of Area "A", there is a huge question if the State of Palestine actually ever existed. Hence, one of the reasons they want Israel to relinquish control; and one of the reasons why the 1988 State of Palestine was only granted observer status.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is funny.

If that were true, the the committee that defines Colonization (Special Committee 24) would have it on the listing to address [Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT)]:

This is assuming that the UN is perfect. You and I and most everybody else knows that this is far from true.

Funny how the UN suddenly becomes "not perfect" when it rules against Team Palestine.

The UN has always done squat when it comes to Palestine. Sometimes they will pass a resolution then they will throw on the shelf to collect dust.

(COMMENT)

I would say that very few of that long list of Resolutions were actually binding..

The question here is: What "exactly" did you expect the UN to do?

At the end of the day, the UN does not have the responsibility to fight Hostile Arab Palestinian battles for them. And the mistake the UN made was giving the Palestinians any voice at all on the international forum. All the Palestinians have done in the last half-century is open hostilities and whine about defeats. They have yet established control over anything beyond Area "A."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Eloy, et al,

Well, you are confusing types of sovereignty. There is, of course the sovereignty of a person that is associated with the characteristic of adulthood and the ability to make decisions about one’s destiny. But the Sovereignty we are talking about here is a matter of authority; it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority.

Statehood is not just the matter of magic, Poof! It’s a state. Ad one of the characteristic of a State is territory; which is not just a matter of saying, that territory is mine. It is a matter of extending sovereign authority over it.

The holder of sovereignty is superior to all authorities under its purview. Supremacy, too, is endemic to modernity. During the Middle Ages, manifold authorities held some sort of legal warrant for their authority, whether feudal, canonical, or otherwise, but very rarely did such warrant confer supremacy.

A final ingredient of sovereignty is territoriality, also a feature of political authority in modernity. Territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined. It specifies that their membership derives from their residence within borders. It is a powerful principle, for it defines membership in a way that may not correspond with identity. The borders of a sovereign state may not at all circumscribe a “people” or a “nation,” and may in fact encompass several of these identities, as national self-determination and irredentist movements make evident. It is rather by simple virtue of their location within geographic borders that people belong to a state and fall under the authority of its ruler. It is within a geographic territory that modern sovereigns are supremely authoritative.
SOURCE: 1. A Definition of Sovereignty
​

Or, in thumbnail terms: “Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy. Derived from the Latin term superanus through the French term souveraineté, sovereignty was originally meant to be the equivalent of supreme power. However, in practice it often has departed from this traditional meaning.” (WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica )

State sovereignty legal definition of State sovereignty
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty
Definition of State sovereignty in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. What is State sovereignty?
​

Your post is too long for me to answer.

In your comment you wrote:
"The idea behind self-determination is at issue. The people of any given state, once the sovereignty is established, have the right to determine the nature and character of their country."

You appear to be suggesting that sovereignty comes after a state exists but this is seldom the case when it comes to a demand for the right of self-determination. People who call for self-determination are usually a minority in a state. It is not only a state that has sovereignty but also a people.

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) can claim this or that is their territory. But their claim is somewhat illegitimate in that the HoAP never had sovereignty over the territory in question.

In order to say that a state exists ... it is enough that this territory has a sufficient consistency, even though its boundaries have not yet been accurately delimited, and that the state actually exercises independent public authority over that territory. (Law and National Security:Selected Issues Pnina Sharvit Baruch and Anat Kurz, Editors)

Rocco has this thing about sovereign states. Actually sovereignty belongs to the people. (The people of the place. Not people from someplace else.) Governments and states are the result of the exercise of their sovereignty not prerequisites. Preventing people the right to exercise their sovereignty is a crime against those people.

(COMMENT)

I think you are confused as to what "sovereignty" mean, relative to a political entity; or what it means when the say "sovereignty in person" relative to a state.

The bottom line is, that if an authority (or would be authority) cannot claim authority over the territory, it is not a state. If someone else exercises authority over the territory, then it was never theirs to begin with.

In fact, with the exception of Area "A", there is a huge question if the State of Palestine actually ever existed. Hence, one of the reasons they want Israel to relinquish control; and one of the reasons why the 1988 State of Palestine was only granted observer status.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, all that without addressing my post.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

Eloy, et al,

Well, you are confusing types of sovereignty. There is, of course the sovereignty of a person that is associated with the characteristic of adulthood and the ability to make decisions about one’s destiny. But the Sovereignty we are talking about here is a matter of authority; it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority.

Statehood is not just the matter of magic, Poof! It’s a state. Ad one of the characteristic of a State is territory; which is not just a matter of saying, that territory is mine. It is a matter of extending sovereign authority over it.

The holder of sovereignty is superior to all authorities under its purview. Supremacy, too, is endemic to modernity. During the Middle Ages, manifold authorities held some sort of legal warrant for their authority, whether feudal, canonical, or otherwise, but very rarely did such warrant confer supremacy.

A final ingredient of sovereignty is territoriality, also a feature of political authority in modernity. Territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined. It specifies that their membership derives from their residence within borders. It is a powerful principle, for it defines membership in a way that may not correspond with identity. The borders of a sovereign state may not at all circumscribe a “people” or a “nation,” and may in fact encompass several of these identities, as national self-determination and irredentist movements make evident. It is rather by simple virtue of their location within geographic borders that people belong to a state and fall under the authority of its ruler. It is within a geographic territory that modern sovereigns are supremely authoritative.
SOURCE: 1. A Definition of Sovereignty
​

Or, in thumbnail terms: “Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy. Derived from the Latin term superanus through the French term souveraineté, sovereignty was originally meant to be the equivalent of supreme power. However, in practice it often has departed from this traditional meaning.” (WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica )

State sovereignty legal definition of State sovereignty
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty
Definition of State sovereignty in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. What is State sovereignty?
​

Your post is too long for me to answer.

In your comment you wrote:
"The idea behind self-determination is at issue. The people of any given state, once the sovereignty is established, have the right to determine the nature and character of their country."

You appear to be suggesting that sovereignty comes after a state exists but this is seldom the case when it comes to a demand for the right of self-determination. People who call for self-determination are usually a minority in a state. It is not only a state that has sovereignty but also a people.

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) can claim this or that is their territory. But their claim is somewhat illegitimate in that the HoAP never had sovereignty over the territory in question.

In order to say that a state exists ... it is enough that this territory has a sufficient consistency, even though its boundaries have not yet been accurately delimited, and that the state actually exercises independent public authority over that territory. (Law and National Security:Selected Issues Pnina Sharvit Baruch and Anat Kurz, Editors)

Rocco has this thing about sovereign states. Actually sovereignty belongs to the people. (The people of the place. Not people from someplace else.) Governments and states are the result of the exercise of their sovereignty not prerequisites. Preventing people the right to exercise their sovereignty is a crime against those people.

(COMMENT)

I think you are confused as to what "sovereignty" mean, relative to a political entity; or what it means when the say "sovereignty in person" relative to a state.

The bottom line is, that if an authority (or would be authority) cannot claim authority over the territory, it is not a state. If someone else exercises authority over the territory, then it was never theirs to begin with.

In fact, with the exception of Area "A", there is a huge question if the State of Palestine actually ever existed. Hence, one of the reasons they want Israel to relinquish control; and one of the reasons why the 1988 State of Palestine was only granted observer status.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, all that without addressing my post.

(COMMENT)

Must have problems with eyesight.

v/r
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I would say that very few of that long list of Resolutions were actually binding..

Yeah, I hear that from Israeli propagandists all the time.

The UN regularly base their resolution on existing international law. The law is binding even though the resolution itself may not be.

So that "non binding" Israeli talking point is just a means to duck the law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

Eloy, et al,

Well, you are confusing types of sovereignty. There is, of course the sovereignty of a person that is associated with the characteristic of adulthood and the ability to make decisions about one’s destiny. But the Sovereignty we are talking about here is a matter of authority; it is not a matter of mere authority, but of supreme authority.

Statehood is not just the matter of magic, Poof! It’s a state. Ad one of the characteristic of a State is territory; which is not just a matter of saying, that territory is mine. It is a matter of extending sovereign authority over it.

The holder of sovereignty is superior to all authorities under its purview. Supremacy, too, is endemic to modernity. During the Middle Ages, manifold authorities held some sort of legal warrant for their authority, whether feudal, canonical, or otherwise, but very rarely did such warrant confer supremacy.

A final ingredient of sovereignty is territoriality, also a feature of political authority in modernity. Territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined. It specifies that their membership derives from their residence within borders. It is a powerful principle, for it defines membership in a way that may not correspond with identity. The borders of a sovereign state may not at all circumscribe a “people” or a “nation,” and may in fact encompass several of these identities, as national self-determination and irredentist movements make evident. It is rather by simple virtue of their location within geographic borders that people belong to a state and fall under the authority of its ruler. It is within a geographic territory that modern sovereigns are supremely authoritative.
SOURCE: 1. A Definition of Sovereignty
​

Or, in thumbnail terms: “Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy. Derived from the Latin term superanus through the French term souveraineté, sovereignty was originally meant to be the equivalent of supreme power. However, in practice it often has departed from this traditional meaning.” (WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica )

State sovereignty legal definition of State sovereignty
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty
Definition of State sovereignty in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. What is State sovereignty?
​

Your post is too long for me to answer.

In your comment you wrote:
"The idea behind self-determination is at issue. The people of any given state, once the sovereignty is established, have the right to determine the nature and character of their country."

You appear to be suggesting that sovereignty comes after a state exists but this is seldom the case when it comes to a demand for the right of self-determination. People who call for self-determination are usually a minority in a state. It is not only a state that has sovereignty but also a people.

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) can claim this or that is their territory. But their claim is somewhat illegitimate in that the HoAP never had sovereignty over the territory in question.

In order to say that a state exists ... it is enough that this territory has a sufficient consistency, even though its boundaries have not yet been accurately delimited, and that the state actually exercises independent public authority over that territory. (Law and National Security:Selected Issues Pnina Sharvit Baruch and Anat Kurz, Editors)

Rocco has this thing about sovereign states. Actually sovereignty belongs to the people. (The people of the place. Not people from someplace else.) Governments and states are the result of the exercise of their sovereignty not prerequisites. Preventing people the right to exercise their sovereignty is a crime against those people.

(COMMENT)

I think you are confused as to what "sovereignty" mean, relative to a political entity; or what it means when the say "sovereignty in person" relative to a state.

The bottom line is, that if an authority (or would be authority) cannot claim authority over the territory, it is not a state. If someone else exercises authority over the territory, then it was never theirs to begin with.

In fact, with the exception of Area "A", there is a huge question if the State of Palestine actually ever existed. Hence, one of the reasons they want Israel to relinquish control; and one of the reasons why the 1988 State of Palestine was only granted observer status.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, all that without addressing my post.

(COMMENT)

Must have problems with eyesight.

v/r
R

Maybe less smoke would be helpful.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are a number of ways to view this.

I would say that very few of that long list of Resolutions were actually binding..

Yeah, I hear that from Israeli propagandists all the time.

The UN regularly base their resolution on existing international law. The law is binding even though the resolution itself may not be.

So that "non binding" Israeli talking point is just a means to duck the law.

(COMMENT)

Talk about specifics and the law; OR, address it on a practical solution plane to the matching issue. But don't to cite a resolution that is non-binding and thus, does not speak to the elements of the offense.

Most Respectfully,
R