Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3286
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 16 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

    It's hard to label these days because the lines are all jumbled up.  IMO Trumpism is a new distillation of various threads in the right, and it's pulled in some people who wouldn't have been Republicans before.   I admittedly don't know too much about Roseanne's political history, but her Twitter before this event is filled with screeds about liberals and nutty shit from Breitbart.   I think she was an early supporter of Trump, before the show reboot. 

    Well again, that means she’s either dabbling in apostasy or idiocy, neither of which merits a microsecond of my attention to her.

  2. 5 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

    For all the talk from the right about libs and Hollywood, here's yet another example of an entertainer on the right having a prominent role in pushing their political narratives, to the delight of the base. 

    Based on my admittedly limited understanding of her, Roseanne's not a right winger. My guess is that this whole thing has been a gigantic ruse in order to exploit trumpkins on national TV (kinda like how Bill Shatner exploited R's with his Denny Crane character on The Practice/Boston Legal) and their general way of "thinking," and she just took it a little too far with these tweets.

    I could be wrong, but it's just hard to fathom that a self-identified socialist would swing that hard towards the complete opposite end of the political spectrum in that short of an amount of time, particularly when it was entirely based on the idiotic ramblings of that douchebag. I mean, after all, didn't she come out with this pro-Trump nonsense around the same time the show re-launched? And didn't it start when she was on the Kimmel Show dressed as her character and sitting on the goddamn couch from the set?

    And if this is all for real, it should be ignored because the goal of a model apostate a la Christopher Hitchens is to attract as much attention as possible via the launching of rabid repudiations of one's own political past, and we ought not to coddle that via paying even a microsecond's attention to it. 

  3. 1 hour ago, JBJ said:

    Well, 1964 is three years before 1967.  Whatever guerilla groups came before that were attacking Jewish lands before that.

    Like someone else already said, you were deeming that as the PLO and used the British exit as the reference point. The British exit and  the PLO’s birth were separated by 17 years.

    But more importantly, what you said about the PLO being offered “their own land” (presumably Palestinian land) “multiple times” is grotesquely false. The only way it could be true is if you analyzed such offers on the premise of “what Israel wants” instead of “what both sides are legally entitled to.”

  4. 12 hours ago, realgreggym said:

    Actually they didn't until 67.

    That makes no sense even according to Israeli propaganda. They allege that the Arabs started a war over it in 1948. What do you think that was about?

    You claim to follow this issue closely, so you'd have to know who Israel's main scholars are. So, for example, when you read the writings of Benny Morris, who's widely regarded as Israel's main historian, you'll notice that he wrote a book called Righteous Victims. In it, he says:

    "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948" (p. 37)

    “In the 1880's there were already Arabs who understood that the threat from Zionism was not merely a local matter or a by-product of cultural estrangement.‘The natives are hostile towards us, saying that we have come to drive them out of the country,’ recorded one Zionist settler” (p. 46)

    “[T]he major cause of tension and violence . . . was . . . the conflicting interests and goals of the two populations. The Arabs sought instinctively to . . . maintain their position as [Palestine’s] rightful inhabitants; the Zionists sought radically to change the status quo . . . and eventually turn an Arab-populated country into a Jewish homeland. . . . The Arabs, both urban and rural, came to feel anxiety and fear." (p. 49)

    Regardless of what one's feelings are about the Partition, the facts are clear: there was an indigenous population in Palestine prior to 1948 (let alone 1967). A population cannot be "displaced and dispossessed," cannot "maintain their position as Palestine's rightful inhabitants," and cannot be "driven out of the country" if they aren't already there and already care about it. We as Americans cannot, for example, "displace and dispossess" the indigenous Nepalese population of Florida because there is no such thing. We can (and did) displace and dispossess, for example, Cherokees in Tennessee/North Carolina...because they were there before we were. Again, it's 2018 and things like this shouldn't have to be broken down into such simplistic terms, but that's where we are in modern discourse. This is right up there with Morris' "Hamas chickens!!!"

    4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Not quite.  The PLO was attacking Israel from Jordan and Syria since the Brits left.  They didn't want their own land (which has been offered to them multiple times) they want Jewish lands.

    The PLO has only been an organization since 1964. That second statement you made is even less accurate.

    • Like 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

    That's not the first time they've wiped their ass with human rights/international legal requests/opinions, and it likely won't be the last. This is the same court that rejected the unanimous 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion regarding the West Bank wall, citing "property rights" as if that was anywhere in the same universe as a valid claim.

  6. 8 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:
    "It's interesting to note that the clandestine branch of the CIA was housed on the top floor," he added. "No personnel were lost, but any and all documents were destroyed, just like a giant shredder. The Pentagon was hit in a wing being remodeled (but few people), that held a mountain of paperwork regarding 1 trillion dollars which the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was having trouble accounting for. That mountain of paperwork became a pile of ash."
    In a February 2013 post on the blog of a political action committee he established in 2012 called Elect a New Congress, Fawell said that Beyonce's husband, rapper Jay-Z, "has a long history of serving up the godless Illuminati" and shared a YouTube video that speculated that Beyonce's upcoming halftime performance at the Super Bowl would have Illuminati symbolism.
     
    The Illuminati is a secret society that serves as the basis for a popular conspiracy theory that alleges that many of the world's leaders and celebrities are masterminding world events.
    In the same blog post, Fawell said that the previous Super Bowl's halftime show, performed by Madonna, was satanic and influenced by the Illuminati. He also called Madonna a "narcissist skank with the crooked teeth."
     
    giphy.gif

    It's 2018 and people like that still insist upon themselves.

  7. I specifically quoted you on the two germane points, namely the "closing" of the Straits of Tiran and the troop concentration in the Sinai. I also referred to the rest of it, but just didn't quote it.

    Look, I know when a person is lying. That post of mine takes up 6.25 pages on a Word Doc with a 12-point font. There's no way you could have read all of that and checked even a portion of the source material in less than 15 minutes...unless you already had a response prepared before you even read it. 

    "You are ignoring that they had also blockaded Israel from accessing the Red Sea, which is another valid historical casus belli." Quoted and addressed
    "Also, keep in mind that the consequences for being wrong and the Egyptians actually attacking are genocide if they win." Addressed but not quoted.
    "No. Massing troops on your enemies border throughout history has always been a valid casus belli and a good way to get your ass kicked if you are unprepared for the war you are starting. It doesn't matter if you're immediately going to attack or not. You are signaling intent and preparation." Quoted and addressed

    The fact that you didn't read it does not mitigate the fact that those points were specifically addressed. 

    • Like 1
  8. 4 minutes ago, Pods said:

    I did read it.

    If you did, you would have checked up on the evidence I presented instead of instantaneously dismissing it out of sheer refusal to believe anything else than what you already want to believe.

  9. 3 minutes ago, Pods said:

    @hpslugga The vast majority of the screed you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the post you were quoting. Here it what you were quoting and said every word of was false again. Every word is factual, with one speculative opinion. 

     

     

    You didn't even bother to read it. I literally went through every claim that you made, which you very humbly labeled "TRUE STATEMENT."

  10. 3 hours ago, Pods said:

    Actually, nothing I wrote was wrong.

    The record shows that literally everything you said was 100% the opposite of reality. 

    Quote

    Literally every single thing is correct

    In your own mind

    Quote

    and you are responding with emotion and a poor attempt at a meme, rather than evaluating facts.

    You aren't stating facts, you're projecting, and you didn't count on the fact that you were addressing someone who wrote a thesis on the I/P Conflict (the biggest section of which was the lead up to the 1967 war), which is why you post with such half-baked bluster. I had to spend five months doing research for that fucking thing, I ended up with 171 pages and consulted over 750 footnotes. So when you come along with lines like "you are responding with emotion," I attach as much value to that as I do to the dust on my floor.

    Quote

    I'll leave you to it. 

    Ok...

    It takes only 10 seconds to tell/recite a lie and at least 10 minutes to decode it. 

    YOU SAID: "You are ignoring that they had also blockaded Israel from accessing the Red Sea, which is another valid historical casus belli."

    Regarding the "closing" of the Straits of Tiran:

    1. The closure was merely announced, never enforced, and, to be perfectly honest, likely didn't exist. Nasser was a windbag and he did announce the “closure,” but they started allowing ships to pass freely a couple days later. In fact Indar Jit Rikhye, the UNEF Commander in the Sinai, stated, “I personally flew over there, the Straits weren’t closed.” He's on the record in saying “The U.A.R. navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation,” particularly in light of the fact that an Israeli-flagged ship hadn’t passed through the Straits in two years.

    Also, when you read the '67 volume of Foreign Relations of the United States, you’ll notice that virtually (if not literally) every speaker took great care to avoid the use of the more definitive term "blockade" as an assertion and only spoke of it as a hypothetical. In other words, they never stated in internal documents that it was actually closed. Why? Because as Clark Clifford correctly pointed out in an internal discussion on May 26th, "all we are acting from at the moment is a UAR announcement that it would close the Straits. As far as we know--since the UAR had been talking about our Battle Act--the UAR might allow even oil tankers to go through the Straits...So far we have had only an oral threat."

    In fact, Clifford recommended, "We must call Nasser's bluff. We must put him in a position where he either takes an overt act against free shipping or backs down." Well if US leadership was speaking of testing the actuality of the blockade (i.e. “calling Nasser’s bluff”), that should tell you that they weren’t even sure if it was a real thing.

    Bear in mind, this conversation took place on May 26th. No "overt acts against free shipping" ever took place. No ships were denied entry, no ships were forced to turn around, and most importantly to this question, no Israeli ships were fired upon. That's not a blockade.

    2. The status of the Straits as an “international waterway” was a contentious question at best. In those same internal records, you'll come across lines like "we believe the Straits comprehend international waters." Operative phrase: "we believe." That was also Nasser's operative phrase, and quite honestly it was a more compelling one, though I would have been more interested to see where the ICJ would have fallen on that issue than to hear leaders from either side puff their chests about it. More on that below.

    3. The only use Israel had for the Straits was for importing sparing amounts of oil. As mentioned, the US was fairly convinced that even if this blockade was a real thing, they were going to allow oil tankers, which is all Israel ever sent, even though they’d not done so for 2 years because most of their oil imports came into the city of Haifa via the Mediterranean and not Eilat via the Straits, in addition to the fact that they had an abundant supply at the time. Estimates showed Israel possessed enough oil for the entire State for at least 7 months. A less-than-a-week interruption for them with a supply like that is not a crime in any real sense, especially considering the Straits’ ambiguous legal status and the fact that Israel simply wasn’t using them to import oil or anything else at the time. In the bigger picture, since 1948, the Straits had served as a whopping 5% of Israel’s import economy. So Abba Eban was simply bullshitting when he said that “Israel is now forced to breathe with a single lung.” He knew he was bullshitting at the time, because as he later confessed in his autobiography that he thought "Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war.” 

    4. Near the end of May, Nasser signaled that instead of armed conflict, he’d like to invite Israel to have the Straits issue adjudicated at the International Court of Justice. Israel refused the offer. They could have settled the issue of the Straits in the ICJ, and Israel, despite its assurances to the US that it would pursue the international legal route, declined. The fact is that the only reason they got so pissed about this so-called "closure" is because the UAR had defied Israel, thereby undermining its so-called "deterrence capacity," which is what Ariel Sharon defined as "the fear of us." In other words, it was the damaging political effect that drove Israel to use that as a pretext, not a fear of annihilation. 

    YOU SAID: "No. Massing troops on your enemies border throughout history has always been a valid casus belli and a good way to get your ass kicked if you are unprepared for the war you are starting. It doesn't matter if you're immediately going to attack or not. You are signaling intent and preparation."

    Regarding the troop concentration at the border:

    For one thing, let’s forget that the Israeli command virtually was in concert in admitting to attacking.

    Let’s forget that Chief of Staff of the IDF, Yitzhak Rabin, fully admitted "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." 

    Let’s forget that General MatityahuPeled fully admitted "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war...When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn’t go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today...To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal [the IDF]."

    Let’s forget that Deputy Chief Haim Bar-Lev fully admitted "the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli."

    Let’s forget all of that. Let’s forget the fact that the fucking highest of the high command were saying that at the time.

    Hell, let’s also forget that one of the most prominent politicians of the day, Menachem Begin, fully admitted “we must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack them.”

    Let’s forget that. I’m sure that someone could easily dismiss that as "they all lied!" You, on the other hand, still have your best work ahead of you because you simply cannot account for myriad questions requiring the most basic of logic to answer:

    Prior to Nasser moving his forces to the Sinai, he asked UN Secretary General U Thant to move the UNEF out of the area. U Thant was heavily criticized for this, but the law says that when a member state requests this and it’s their country in question, they have to leave. After the UNEF left, why didn’t Israel request that they re-deploy on their side of the border? I mean if the UNEF was as vital to the peacekeeping effort as they apparently thought they were, given their shock and horror when Nasser asked them to leave, it’d stand to reason that Israel would like to use them for the same purpose, right?

    And regarding the Straits, if this was such an issue for Israel, then why didn’t take up Nasser’s offer to adjudicate the matter in the ICJ? If Nasser himself had suggested that, why not take him up on the offer where they could prevail in court? Is it because they had a flimsy claim to it that the ICJ would ultimately rule against, thereby validating any actual blockades Nasser might institute?

    Nasser dispatched his Vice President, ZakkariyaMuhieddin, to Washington, DC in order to open a dialogue that would culminate in a diplomatic settlement in lieu of conflict. Israel did not dispatch a soul in response and pursued its attack. If the Egyptians were willing to at least discuss avoiding war, which Israel "feared" they were destined to initiate, why wouldn’t the Israelis have been excited as hell to do the same?

    Here’s what’s exasperating to me: a very significant portion of what I just said was already explained to you in lurid detail via that video I posted, which means you couldn’t even be bothered to watch it. You didn’t address any points that were made, you continued to assert things totally devoid of any credible evidence to support them, and you had the nerve to project that I’m “ignoring” things. I’m not ignoring jack shit. I’m rendering the historical documentary record, which is what I did almost 10 years ago when I wrote an entire thesis on the topic.

    You then posted a line that was as disingenuous as it was disturbing. You said you sympathized with the Palestinian plight.

    If you were, you wouldn’t be so hell bent on reproducing a lot of drab propaganda, making excuses, and crafting arguments whole-cloth about “international law” when everything you’ve said has absolutely nothing to do with international law whatsoever. Seriously, you cannot quote Chapter and Article, as it were, any provisions of the UN Charter or any other legal document that says that it's ok to steal people's lands, even in a "defensive war," that preemptive war is permissible when a waterway with an ambiguous international legal status is "closed" for 2-3 days, and/or that preemptive war is permissible when a country's leader assembles troops on his own side of the border.

    You cannot quote any of those things because they do not exist, and contrary to what you said earlier, this is all shit that emanates from the UN Charter, which was written in 1945. This isn't about post-war adjustments to the law that paint Israel in a darker light. The law was already written twenty-two years before the crime was committed. Period.

    What I can quote is far more substantive and relevant to the case. Article 51 of the Charter says "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defenceif an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

    Again, assembling troops and closing waterways (even literally, let alone fictitiously) in no way constitutes an "armed attack."

    Article 51 also states "Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

    In other words, assemble the ranks, draft a prescription…like UNSC 242 AND UNSC 194, and enforce it. We're 51 years past the war and Israel has yet to comply with 242. We have yet to apply any pressure to them to do so since Henry Kissinger built an alliance to marginalize William Rogers in the US State Department in 1971.

    Even in the post 9/11 world, self-defense is widely regarded as requiring two elements:

    The first is that the state must have believed the "threat" in question was legitimate and not just a rumor/perception/pretext. Here, that wasn't the case. Again, Meir Amit agreed with the US intelligence picture that an attack wasn't imminent and that if it was, they would "whip hell out of them."

    The second is that the state using self-defense must act in a way that basically mirrors that of which it perceived the enemy capable. Here, that wasn't the case. Israel killed people at a ratio of 20:1, they completely devastated the armed forces of 5 countries, and they flat out stole land that amounted to 2-3 times its own size, which they flat out refused to relinquish even after the leader of one of the countries offered a full peace treaty to them in 1971, (see "Mission, Jarring").

    The idea that the Arabs could have done anything close to this, even if all 5 countries launched a full-scale assault simultaneously, is a bad joke. In fact, the notion that “war is not the Arabs’ game” was so pervasive in Israel at that time that the preferred nomenclature of an Arab commando/soldier was “monkey.” The only way an Israeli genocide was taking place that week in history was if 1) the rumors about Nasser attacking were true and 2) the entire IDF just stood there and did nothing. Even a surprise attack would have been thwarted.

    And even if I were to concede your argument about Nasser “attacking first,” which I don’t, you still have all your work ahead of you because of two things:

    In the end you’re talking about the doctrine of preemptive war. Preemptive war is indeed permitted under international law, but it has a qualification, which is illustrated in Article 51 of the UN Charter: it has to be made against an “armed attack.” Closing a waterway and assembling troops on your own side of the border is not an armed attack, which is why the Mexicans aren’t screaming bloody murder at the UN when Trump talks about deploying troops at the border. In fact speaking of dumb American Republican presidents, the reason the Bush43 administration was so adamant about insisting on a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda is because they wanted to force a square peg into the round hole of preemptive war by “showing” that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which was an armed attack against the US (same reason the UN didn’t bat an eyelash when we went into Afghanistan). They knew they couldn’t simply rely on “WMD’s” because, for one thing, they knew that was bullshit that would eventually get exposed and even if it were true, it wasn’t enough.

    And even if you can actually prove the 1967 war was legally defined as “preemptive,” the UN Charter does not and never did make an exception for preemptive war as a means to acquire territory. Again, this is why 242 is “emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” And far from what it does say, notice what it does not say: it does not say “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by aggression.” That means it’s inadmissible regardless of who started it. You’ve got all these layers to peel in order to show that Israel has a case to keep that territory, to impose a blockade on Gaza, to render Gaza as “an open air prison,” to encase illegal West Bank settlements with walls built on the WB side of the green line and to freely send in the IDF to mass murder civilians, and you haven’t peeled layer damn 1.

    Why would the framers of 242 include such a statement if it had, according to you, no application to this specific case? And even before the final draft of 242 was written and voted on, the UN had its 5th Emergency Special Session that spanned from June 17 1967 (a week after the war officially ended) through September 18th. In it, one of the items discussed was the assertion that Israel was engaged in “self-defense.” Not one country asserted that Israel was engaging in “self-defense” during those six days. Even Arthur Goldberg, the US ambassador to the UN, argued that both sides contributed to the escalation of hostilities. And that issue was pertinent because a letter from the MFA of the USSR triggered the session. In it, the Soviet Ambassador (Fedorenko) articulated that the objective of the emergency session should be the consideration of “the question of liquidating the consequences of Israel’s aggression against the Arab States and the immediate withdrawal of Israel troops behind the armistice lines.” Not one representative at that session objected to that wording, not even Goldberg. That bell was never silenced. No one even tried to.

    So even if you were correct in your diagnosing the so-called “closure of the Straits,” as it’s called, and/or Nasser’s troop assembly in the Sinai as a “casus belli,” which you are not, it’s immaterial because the Soviet Union’s accusation of Israeli aggression and its recommendation of withdrawal to the armistice lines went unchallenged, uncontested, and unopposed. More importantly, the British and American ambassadors very soon after this session began to draft a resolution that “emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” And all 15 of the ICJ judges, which again included two Jews (representing the US and UK, oddly enough), nearly 40 years later agreed that resolution is the basis to resolve the conflict, and thusly that the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, and the whole of East Jerusalem were Occupied Palestinian Territory. Not only was literally everything you said not true, it was also completely irrelevant to the current state of reality that has plagued that area of the world since June 4 1967.

    If you really were “sympathetic to the Palestinian plight,” you’d be rejoicing in the fact that the Palestinians have been pushing towards negotiating a settlement on the terms of what a broad consensus of the international community for the past 42 years. They were a part of a non-aligned coalition that pushed forth that SC resolution that called for a two-state settlement in January of 1976, and they started pushing for it independently beginning with the Algiers Declaration in 1988. If you were sympathetic to their plight, you’d support them in that effort because it’s right, it’s fair, it’s just, and it’s what a broad consensus of the international community has prescribed for over half a century.

    Israel attacked in 1967. Their leadership admitted it, our leadership admitted it, the UN leadership admitted it (and still does whenever it renews its vote on the Palestine Question as it’s always based on 242 and 194), and of course the Arab leadership admitted it as well. Like General Peled stated, that stuff you’ve been posting thus far is a “bluff, which was born and developed after the war,” and it has jack shit to do with the historical record. 

    So regardless of what you thought of my "meme," it was accurate: everything you said was wrong.

    • Like 3
  11. On 5/17/2018 at 3:22 PM, Pods said:

    No. Massing troops on your enemies border throughout history has always been a valid casus belli and a good way to get your ass kicked if you are unprepared for the war you are starting. It doesn't matter if you're immediately going to attack or not. You are signaling intent and preparation. 

    Also, keep in mind that the consequences for being wrong and the Egyptians actually attacking are genocide if they win. 

    You are ignoring that they had also blockaded Israel from accessing the Red Sea, which is another valid historical casus belli. 

    All of that also only covers Egypt. The other Arab countries chose to attack Israel, including Jordan, who owned Jerusalem and the West Bank. They lost those in response and they are mostly the territories we are talking about. 

    I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but a huge percent of their situation is being fucked by other Arabs. 

    If the Arabs had won the Six Days War, do you really think there would be an independent Palestine? They'd have carved it up and eaten the pieces. 

     

  12. Quote

    There are no objective facts or truths, and when you understand that, there can be no objective discussion about policy.

    Hammer meets nail.

    Postmodernist thinking has absolutely infected our political discourse to the point where we really aren't supposed to, as Gandhi put it, "call a liar a liar." Everyone has "different narratives," and like you say, "there are no objective facts or truths."

  13. On 5/5/2018 at 5:48 PM, Longboard Horn said:

    When it comes to Craig James, hpslugga said it best over on shaggy:

    “The only man in America that could help turn Mustangs into Ponies and Red Raiders into The Rectum Tech Fanny Bandits. College football fans would be wise to create a GoFundMe for Adam James' vasectomy so this shitstain never has a grandchild play for some other program for him to fuck into obscurity.”

    I would totally get behind this. 

    In my defense, I was being totally sincere. The only thing I left out was at the very end, I should have said "and you know it'll be "some other program" too because neither Tech nor SMU wants shit to do with that family."

    • Like 2
  14. 1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

    Who did they take the West Bank from?  The rightful owner Jordan?

    That’s irrelevant. Jordan has no current claim to it, which is why they have repeatedly voted in favor of Palestinian self-determination/statehood (however one cares to phrase it) as many as three times a year, depending on whether or not the UN has one. At the General Assembly, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, they always vote in favor of the granting of Palestinian self-determination. Even you can understand that’s a direct repudiation of any claim they have to the West Bank because in all 3 cases, “Palestine” is defined the same exact way: the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, and the whole of East Jerusalem.

    And before you start, Egypt has voted in the exact same pattern, so they clearly do not claim Gaza either.

  15. ^
    Explained in a far better way than I have in the last decade or so. I could also whip out the dozen or so quotes from Israel's leadership explaining how Nasser's troop concentration was "not a casus belli" and how they all understood that he was not about to attack, but I doubt that's going to cause even a moment's hesitation on your part.

    • Like 1
  16. 49 minutes ago, Pods said:

    Bullshit. Start war and lose = lose land has been international law since international law has existed. The world changed those standards in the 1960's and 1970's in response to Israeli victories over Arab aggression. 

    The '67 war was initiated by Israel and every single high ranking member of their military and government openly and notoriously admitted to that, so everything you said after that is moot. You seem to have this idea that international law vindicated Israel's capture of the lands they took, and that's just not accurate at all. Why else does 242 (which was written by an American and a Brit) literally begin with "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war?"

    As to the second sentence, that's preposterous. The sentence "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." is in Article 2 Principle 4 of the UN's freaking Charter. It's been there since the UN was founded, which predates the State of Israel itself, so what you said could not possibly be true in any meaningful way.

×
×
  • Create New...