Hamas escapes almost all accountability for a war it started in a malicious act of depravity.

[Billo_Really]

Are you really that thick?

You're the one who said it didn't exist.

 

[expat500]

You're the one who said it didn't exist.

I did indeed.

And you’re the one that hasn’t noticed there is no Palestinian state.

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't know. The US?

Not even the US. And not even Israel itself! The Israeli High Court still considers these lands "occupied"

 

[Billo_Really]

Again, you obviously haven't read 242.

Negro, please! I've read it more times than you have.

 

[rosends]

What you provided was some bullshit attempt to cherrypick parts of 242 to make it seem it was saying something other than it was stating. I completely reject your bullshit attempt at redefining what 242 said.

The meaning of 242 was clear. It is inadmissible to hold onto land seized in a war and Israel needs to get its fucking, immoral army out of the OPT.

that "attempt" was actually the authors explaining what they meant when they wrote the document. Are you calling their explanation of their own work and words BS? Are you publicly rejecting the statements of the authors of the text regarding meaning?

I note that when you "quoted" 242 you wrote "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the occupied territories" but 242 doesn't say "the occupied". Any reason you would intentionally misquote and insert a word that the authors specifically did not include? Why would you be so intellectually dishonest by changing what the text says?

 

[Shusha]

It is inadmissible to hold onto land seized in a war...

Exactly. We agree that Jordan and Egypt had no right to seize that land. Good thing all claims and states of belligerency between the States in the area were terminated and every State in the area recognized the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of the other States.

242 resolved and put in the history books. (Well, Golan Heights being the exception).

 

[expat500]

You're the one who said it didn't exist.

I did indeed.

And you’re the one that hasn’t noticed there is no Palestinian state.

Not even the US. And not even Israel itself! The Israeli High Court still considers these lands "occupied"

A country cannot occupy territory to which it has sovereign title; hence, the correct term for the area is “disputed territory,” which does not confer greater rights to either Israel or the Palestinians. The Palestinians never had sovereignty in the West Bank, whereas the Jews did for hundreds of years; therefore, “Israel has the strongest claim to the land,” according to legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich. “International law holds that a new country inherits the borders of the prior geopolitical unit in that territory. Israel was preceded by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine; whose borders included the West Bank.

JVL

 

[GLASNOST]

I don't know. The US?

... not even Israel itself! The Israeli High Court still considers these lands "occupied"

Is that true?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Negro, please! I've read it more times than you have.

Obviously not, since you have no idea what it says.

 

[Billo_Really]

I do not agree.

Maybe.

Presumably.

That's a mistake. If you include the US then you've shot yourself in the foot in your previous statement.

Look, Israel is the biggest military power in the region. No other country comes close.

 

[Billo_Really]

The part where you quoted the text incorrectly?

You are on acid!

 

[Billo_Really]

Seized from whom?

Doesn't matter!

 

[Billo_Really]

I did indeed.

And you’re the one that hasn’t noticed there is no Palestinian state.

Doesn't matter!

 

[expat500]

Doesn't matter!

Of course it does. As far as you’re concerned.

 

[Billo_Really]

that "attempt" was actually the authors explaining what they meant when they wrote the document. Are you calling their explanation of their own work and words BS? Are you publicly rejecting the statements of the authors of the text regarding meaning?

I note that when you "quoted" 242 you wrote "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the occupied territories" but 242 doesn't say "the occupied". Any reason you would intentionally misquote and insert a word that the authors specifically did not include? Why would you be so intellectually dishonest by changing what the text says?

No, they were not authors of 242. Just some bullshit Israeli hasbara group trying to muddy up the waters.

 

[Shusha]

A country cannot occupy territory to which it has sovereign title; hence, the correct term for the area is “disputed territory,” which does not confer greater rights to either Israel or the Palestinians.

I disagree with the term "disputed territory" as well. This terminology implies there is some legal question or grey area concerning the territory and two equal, but competing claims to sovereignty. This is incorrect. Only Israel has legal claim to sovereignty over the Mandate territory. In order for another sovereign to claim territory, Israel must relinquish control over the territory then cede it in a treaty. Israel has done the former, the latter remains elusive. ,

 

[Billo_Really]

Exactly. We agree that Jordan and Egypt had no right to seize that land. Good thing all claims and states of belligerency between the States in the area were terminated and every State in the area recognized the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of the other States.

242 resolved and put in the history books. (Well, Golan Heights being the exception).

Nice try. You fail.

 

[Shusha]

You are on acid!

Dude, I posted the text verbatim. You misquoted it.

 

[GLASNOST]

Look, Israel is the biggest military power in the region. No other country comes close.

I'm fairly certain of that but you've mixed in some other facts that weaken your main point. It is unwise to use US support as motivated proof of strength in the Middle East for Israel but then ignore the possibility of Iranian, Houthi, Russian and Chinese support for Palestine. If you put all of them in lock-step then I don't give Israel much of a chance to survive.

 

[Shusha]

Doesn't matter!

No, it very much does matter. It is inadmissible to acquire the territory of another sovereign through belligerency and aggression. It is perfectly legal to reclaim occupied territory.