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

[rosends]

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

they were not the authors of 242? Then who was? They seem to think they were. Their bona fides are on the website which I cited and which writes, "statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 – Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown"

 

[expat500]

I disagree with the term "disputed territory" as well

It’s probably used for expediency.

I wonder if it was called ‘disputed’ when Jordan controlled it.

 

[Ringo]

I'm gonna guess, bringing this up is anti-semitic?

 

[Shusha]

I'm gonna guess, bringing this up is anti-semitic?

Not at all.

A dead body with hands tied and wearing medical scrubs was found in a mass grave during a war.

This is just relaying simple facts. Facts are not inherently antisemitic.

 

[GLASNOST]

I'm gonna guess, bringing this up is anti-semitic? ”A dead body, hands tied and dressed in medical scrubs, was discovered among the hundreds found in mass graves at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza, left by the Israeli army”.

You anti-Semites really piss me off!

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

That is not Israel's territory. That was land seized in a war. 242 specifically states the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories. Period.

 

[Billo_Really]

they were not the authors of 242? Then who was? They seem to think they were. Their bona fides are on the website which I cited and which writes, "statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 – Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown"

242 specifically states the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories. There is simply no other way to look at that.

 

[GLASNOST]

242 specifically states the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories. There is simply no other way to look at that.

Allow me to underscore the point:
242 specifically states the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories. There is simply no other way to look at that.

 

[bendog]

When Reagan came in, the hostages were released.

And we gave iran arms!

 

[bendog]

I say the IDF should settle all family matters.

View attachment 934202

Without the US's help, I agree.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Hamas escapes almost all accountability...
SUBTOPIC: Context
⁜→ et al,

I'm guessing you never has to carry a body!

I'm gonna guess, bringing this up is anti-semitic?

(COMMENT)

The hand are tied (in this case) with twine so the arms don't dangle. Single strands of twine are not used to secure live prisoners. This picture offers no context. It is very typical for such pictures to be used for propaganda.

What can you tell me about this picture?

What is the picture actually evidence of?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

That is not Israel's territory. That was land seized in a war. 242 specifically states the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories. Period.

The only territories Israel occupies is the Golan Heights. Syria and Israel remain in a state of war.

Israel occupies no other territory. 242 is no longer relevant to any other territories as the parties have ended their belligerency.

 

[Billo_Really]

Is

The only territories Israel occupies is the Golan Heights. Syria and Israel remain in a state of war.

Israel occupies no other territory. 242 is no longer relevant to any other territories as the parties have ended their belligerency.

Israel has not ended its belligerency. Gaza, the WB and East Jerusalem are still occupied.

 

[Shusha]

Israel has not ended its belligerency. Gaza, the WB and East Jerusalem are still occupied.

The Arab peoples predominantly living in those areas of sovereign Israeli territory wish to secede and form their own State (or at least that's what the West tells them they want to do). This can only be done through a treaty agreement with Israel which establishes where one State ends and the other begins.

Should you wish to argue that Israel occupies another State, you are going to have to show me the existing treaty which delineates the territorial integrity of the nascent State of Palestine. And herein lies the problem. There isn't one.

There was a war of aggression committed by two belligerent States who have no legal claim to that territory and yet acquired territory outside their boundaries by force (Jordan and Egypt). Since we agree, and 242 confirms, the "inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force", you must concede that the territories of Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem do not, can not, and have never been the sovereign territory of Jordan or Egypt.

Which means, there is no State for Israel to occupy. As I said before, all of the Mandate of Palestine territory remains one territorial unit - Israel.

 

[rosends]

242 specifically states the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories. There is simply no other way to look at that.

No it doesn't. Why do you insist on misquoting 242?

 

[rosends]

Allow me to underscore the point:
242 specifically states the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories. There is simply no other way to look at that.

Copying someone else's error doesn't make it right.

 

[GLASNOST]

Allow me to underscore the point:
242 specifically states the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories. There is simply no other way to look at that.

Copying someone else's error doesn't make it right.

If you are convinced it is an "error" (and you've taken the time to point it out) then why don't you "correct" it rather than just saying "It's wrong"?

 

[rosends]

If you are convinced it is an "error" (and you've taken the time to point it out) then why don't you "correct" it rather than just saying "It's wrong"?

I have - I have evidence that the correct wording was intentional according to thr authors. Didn't you read that?

 

[GLASNOST]

I have - I have evidence that the correct wording was intentional according to thr authors.

1). Do you feel that you have a better-than-average understanding of the situation from a legal standpoint?

2). In your opinion do you feel Israel has legal authority within its self-claimed borders & occupied territories as of today?

3). Can the Palestinians legally retake the land (whole or in part)?

4). If retaking the land can only be accomplished by illegal means what would be required to convert their victory to a legal one, after the fact?

 

[rosends]

1). Do you feel that you have a better-than-average understanding of the situation from a legal standpoint?

2). In your opinion do you feel Israel has legal authority within its self-claimed borders & occupied territories as of today?

3). Can the Palestinians legally retake the land (whole or in part)?

4). If retaking the land can only be accomplished by illegal means what would be required to convert their victory to a legal one, after the fact?

So these questions are unrelated to the point I made. I'm not sure why you are asking me. Also, the questions are full of loaded and inaccurate language so they can't be answered anyway. But to answer number 1, yes.