Zone1 The Dark Secret of Jew Hatred: Pleasure.

[Billo_Really]

I gave you the precise discussion. You just don't want to read.

Did Egypt break international law with its act of war in the Suez? Yes. Therefore the war was defensive. QED

So you don't know? I read your lame ass citations and they didn't say where 242 allows you to keep that land, either. However, I can specifically point out where it says you can't.

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

That is the actual wording of 242 verbatim. And it clearly states Israel is to withdraw from the "occupied", not disputed, territories.

As to your other point, what was the act of war? Closing the Strait? Does Israel own the Strait? No, it doesn't! So any alleged act of war on your part is bullshit, because it is not an act of war on Israel itself.

But your tanks did roll into Egypt and THAT is an act of war.

 

[Billo_Really]

You did quote him but did so trying to represent a position without knowing the position that Ginsberg held in the community.

So you deny history. Got it.

You really like to make shit up? And who is Ginsberg? WTF are you talking about?

I quoted IHL and you respond with more bullshit innuendo.

 

[rosends]

So you don't know? I read your lame ass citations and they didn't say where 242 allows you to keep that land, either. However, I can specifically point out where it says you can't.

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

You are missing 2 things, one of which is the precise wording. Check what Rostow said about the exclusion of the word "all" and check Kontrovich to compare to parallel language in other resolutions. The other is the use of the word "occupied" -- it does not mean that the land is occupied, but that an army moved in to the area. If you wish to test this (as your English skills seem lacking) try replacing "occupied" with "disputed." It can't be done in that sentence but it can in a sentence like "the legal status of the land is that it is ____________. This is basic English stuff.

That is the actual wording of 242 verbatim. And it clearly states Israel is to withdraw from the "occupied", not disputed, territories.

Not "all," and it isn't labeling the territories, but the existence of Israeli forces. Did you ever take an English class?

As to your other point, what was the act of war? Closing the Strait? Does Israel own the Strait? No, it doesn't! So any alleged act of war on your part is bullshit, because it is not an act of war on Israel itself.

Yes, closing the straits was an act of war
"On May 23rd, President Nasser gave his answer by blockading the straits. This action violated UN Security Council Resolution 118, was condemned by US President Lyndon Johnson, and constituted an act of war in international law."

Egypt Blockades the Straits of Tiran | Six Day War Project

In the third video of this mini-series, Israel pursues a diplomatic solution to the tensions with Egypt, but Egypt imposes a naval blockade on Israel. And

jewishunpacked.com

or if you would rather a legal discussion with precedents cited
https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2988&context=umlr
page 874

"There seems little question that the absolute blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal because a blockade established after the signing of an armistice is considered an act of war and therefore illegal under principles of international law.' "

see II H. ROLIN, LE DROIT MODERNE DE LA GUERRE 805 (1920).

But your tanks did roll into Egypt and THAT is an act of war.

So AFTER what international law called Egypt's act of war, israel reacted. This is simple history.

 

[rosends]

You really like to make shit up? And who is Ginsberg? WTF are you talking about?

The fact that you ask this just proves my position (though it should be Ginzberg, the autocorrect on my phone changed it). Thank you.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are missing 2 things, one of which is the precise wording. Check what Rostow said about the exclusion of the word "all" and check Kontrovich to compare to parallel language in other resolutions. The other is the use of the word "occupied" -- it does not mean that the land is occupied, but that an army moved in to the area. If you wish to test this (as your English skills seem lacking) try replacing "occupied" with "disputed." It can't be done in that sentence but it can in a sentence like "the legal status of the land is that it is ____________. This is basic English stuff.

Not "all," and it isn't labeling the territories, but the existence of Israeli forces. Did you ever take an English class?

Yes, closing the straits was an act of war
"On May 23rd, President Nasser gave his answer by blockading the straits. This action violated UN Security Council Resolution 118, was condemned by US President Lyndon Johnson, and constituted an act of war in international law."

Egypt Blockades the Straits of Tiran | Six Day War Project

In the third video of this mini-series, Israel pursues a diplomatic solution to the tensions with Egypt, but Egypt imposes a naval blockade on Israel. And

jewishunpacked.com

or if you would rather a legal discussion with precedents cited
https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2988&context=umlr
page 874

"There seems little question that the absolute blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal because a blockade established after the signing of an armistice is considered an act of war and therefore illegal under principles of international law.' "

see II H. ROLIN, LE DROIT MODERNE DE LA GUERRE 805 (1920).


So AFTER what international law called Egypt's act of war, israel reacted. This is simple history.

You're playing word games. Did Israel seize these territories during the '67 war? Yes. Is Israel still holding onto these territories since the '67 war? Yes. Therefore, this is an occupation. That is the position of every country on the planet.

I've asked you repeatedly to name one country that recognizes Israel's right to that land and you have failed to answer. Why? Because you are a condescending prick.

I quoted you Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states the only way a country can attack another country. Israel was not attacked by a significant force. The closing of the Strait was a frontier incident, not an act of war.

But rolling tanks into Egypt was a direct attack.

BTW, I got 'A's in English, you POS!

 

[rosends]

You're playing word games.

No, the writers of the document are explaining why those chose particular words. If that bothers you, feel free to tell the author that he is wrong about his own document.

Did Israel seize these territories during the '67 war? Yes.

In a defensive war? Yes.

Is Israel still holding onto these territories since the '67 war? Yes.

If you learned about 242 you would understand why.

Therefore, this is an occupation.

Actually, no. But to understand this, you would have to know what "occupied" actually means in international law and it is clear that you don't.

I've asked you repeatedly to name one country that recognizes Israel's right to that land and you have failed to answer. Why? Because you are a condescending prick.

No, those have nothing to do with each other. I have not answered because the question is a non-starter. You call me names because you have no facts on your side and don't like that I call you out on it. See? Unrelated points.

I quoted you Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states the only way a country can attack another country. Israel was not attacked by a significant force. The closing of the Strait was a frontier incident, not an act of war.

Interesting how you not only now try to change the terms ("attacked by a significant force") but ignore the actual law which I showed you. Did you miss this quote "There seems little question that the absolute blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal because a blockade established after the signing of an armistice is considered an act of war and therefore illegal under principles of international law" (https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2988&context=umlr) Maybe it confuses you because it is from a law journal.

But rolling tanks into Egypt was a direct attack.

In a defensive war. Yes, we have established that.

BTW, I got 'A's in English, you POS!

You keep telling yourself that...

 

[expat500]

BTW, I got 'A's in English, you POS!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I'm an astronaut and part time Chippendales performer, myself.

 

[expat500]

I'm an astronaut and part time Chippendales performer, myself.

lol.

The first one yes, but the second.

Not really.

 

[Lisa558]

I'm an astronaut and part time Chippendales performer, myself.

I’m the Chairman of the Physics Department at an Ivy League University and a bathing suit model for Sports Illustrated.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, the writers of the document are explaining why those chose particular words. If that bothers you, feel free to tell the author that he is wrong about his own document.

In a defensive war? Yes.

If you learned about 242 you would understand why.

Actually, no. But to understand this, you would have to know what "occupied" actually means in international law and it is clear that you don't.

No, those have nothing to do with each other. I have not answered because the question is a non-starter. You call me names because you have no facts on your side and don't like that I call you out on it. See? Unrelated points.

Interesting how you not only now try to change the terms ("attacked by a significant force") but ignore the actual law which I showed you. Did you miss this quote "There seems little question that the absolute blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal because a blockade established after the signing of an armistice is considered an act of war and therefore illegal under principles of international law" (https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2988&context=umlr) Maybe it confuses you because it is from a law journal.

In a defensive war. Yes, we have established that.

You keep telling yourself that...

I told you what 242 says and I also don't believe this bullshit you or your authors are saying. No where in that document are you given land that you seized in the '67 war. Nowhere. That is not your land. Period.

Israel was not directly attacked by the closing of the Strait so Israel was not acting defensively when it attacked Egypt.

And as far as who is calling who names, you have only to look at yourself in the mirror. Demeaning me and my intelligence in every post is just as profane when I accuse you of being a condescending prick.

 

[Hector12]

hatred of Jews by an extremely large percentage of the world's population
is no mystery. An extremely large proportion of the World's population consists of christians and muslims. Both christianity and islam hold that their
scriptural writings---to wit, the "new testament" and the "koran" are absolute
truths and both advocate deadly hatred of Jews. In the US--the people are MOSTLY christians and muslims combined

One might think that Protestant Fundamentalists would hate Jews. Nevertheless, they support Israel because they believe the existence of Israel means that Jesus will come soon. Support for Israel easily segues to affection for Jews. Once while I was watching Jerry Falwell's "Old Time Gospel Hour" Falwell referred to the Jews as "God's people." That is the way I think of them.

 

[rosends]

I told you what 242 says and I also don't believe this bullshit you or your authors are saying.

Ah, so you deny that the author of 242 knows what he is talking about. Fascinating.

No where in that document are you given land that you seized in the '67 war. Nowhere. That is not your land. Period.

Untrue, but to accept that you would have to concede that the authors knew what they were writing. Since you deny that the authors knew what they were writing, you can make up whatever meaning you want I guess.

Israel was not directly attacked by the closing of the Strait so Israel was not acting defensively when it attacked Egypt.

Actually, according to internatuional law, they were attacked, making the war defensive. I even cited the law, itself and a legal treatise which discussed it. But hey, what would lawyers know about laws anyway? Amirite?

And as far as who is calling who names, you have only to look at yourself in the mirror. Demeaning me and my intelligence in every post is just as profane when I accuse you of being a condescending prick.

Who said anything about being profane. The fact that you don't like hearing about your own deficiencies is a you problem.

 

[irosie91]

One might think that Protestant Fundamentalists would hate Jews. Nevertheless, they support Israel because they believe the existence of Israel means that Jesus will come soon. Support for Israel easily segues to affection for Jews. Once while I was watching Jerry Falwell's "Old Time Gospel Hour" Falwell referred to the Jews as "God's people." That is the way I think of them.

Yes---a very interesting thing in the NEW WORLD christian community---even early on they Identified with Jews. It is important to keep in mind that
the early north american christians were sorta at odds with the European
christian establishment. There is a whole sector remaining who still
identify so much that there is an affection----but later on--the other christian new comers to what became the UNITED STATES tended to bring their
old world concepts along with them. An interesting point is that there is
something similar in the Muslim world but on a lesser scale. Back in the
day --IRANIANS that I knew seemed to recall the good old days when jews
and old time PARSIES were sorta pals----that seems to have come to an
abrupt end in 1979. The remnant Parsies (zoroastrians) did not come out of that era well either.

 

[irosie91]

I got A's in English too and was actually APPOINTED to teach in the
ENGLISH REMEDIAL ROOM---where american born kids who could
barely write a cogent sentence ended up. Billo---I give up that job
out of frustration with people like you. One poor kid could not
understand how he got a 'D' on a 'theme paper'. He described the
rules for baseball as his 'theme paper'----and noted with indignation
that there were no spelling errors. But he was a genius in math.-----
sorta like an IDIOT SAVANT

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I’m the Chairman of the Physics Department at an Ivy League University and a bathing suit model for Sports Illustrated.

Thank you,.Alex.

I will yake "things just as likely as Billo being an A student' for 800, please.

 

[Billo_Really]

Ah, so you deny that the author of 242 knows what he is talking about. Fascinating.

Untrue, but to accept that you would have to concede that the authors knew what they were writing. Since you deny that the authors knew what they were writing, you can make up whatever meaning you want I guess.

Actually, according to internatuional law, they were attacked, making the war defensive. I even cited the law, itself and a legal treatise which discussed it. But hey, what would lawyers know about laws anyway? Amirite?

Who said anything about being profane. The fact that you don't like hearing about your own deficiencies is a you problem.

You are so full of shit! The Suez Canal is in Egyption waters. It was nationalized in 1956. And it is still Egyption property to this day. And anyone can do what they feel like with their own property.

If you disagree, then come over to my house and try to tell me what's what under my roof and see what happens next!

Nasser had every right in the world to close off a portion of his property to your piece of shit, apartheid state. And no, that is not an act of war.

If I decide to paint my house pink and you, as my neighbor objects, you can go to hell! Because it is none of your goddamn business what I do on my own property.

 

[rosends]

You are so full of shit! The Suez Canal is in Egyption waters. It was nationalized in 1956. And it is still Egyption property to this day. And anyone can do what they feel like with their own property.

If you disagree, then come over to my house and try to tell me what's what under my roof and see what happens next!

Nasser had every right in the world to close off a portion of his property to your piece of shit, apartheid state. And no, that is not an act of war.

If I decide to paint my house pink and you, as my neighbor objects, you can go to hell! Because it is none of your goddamn business what I do on my own property.

So you are denying the authority of international law regarding sea passages. OK, so noted.

 

[Lisa558]

Here’s a riddle:

Q: Why when Russia attacked Ukraine, unprovoked and for no reason related to self-defense, did we not have leftists and Muslims chanting “Death to Russians!!” and demand “Cease Fire Now!” -

— but when Israel is victimized by a barbaric, savage massacre by HAMAS, in which they decapitated babies and burned toddlers to death, and brag that they will continue until every last Jews is dead, do we now have leftists and Muslims yelling to kill all Jews and demanding a cease fire?

A: Because Russia isn’t a Jewish country.

 

[Hector12]

Here’s a riddle:

Q: Why when Russia attacked Ukraine, unprovoked and for no reason related to self-defense, did we not have leftists and Muslims chanting “Death to Russians!!” and demand “Cease Fire Now!” -

— but when Israel is victimized by a barbaric, savage massacre by HAMAS, in which they decapitated babies and burned toddlers to death, and brag that they will continue until every last Jews is dead, do we now have leftists and Muslims yelling to kill all Jews and demanding a cease fire?

A: Because Russia isn’t a Jewish country.

The Jews are the most accomplished 0.2% of the human population. That is why they are so successful, and why they are resented by leftists and Muslims.