Again !! - Gaza rocket hits Eshkol Council in Israel

Simply because the law states that Israel's annexation of Jerusalem is illegal. You may recall that you've recently claimed that Israel hasn't annexed anything ?

Resolution 242 discharged the Security Council obligations with regard to Article 51. Spouting Article numbers won't help your lack of argument.

The Resolution is already a familiar document to everybody here. Your insinuation that I have lied will be reported unless you withdraw it.

 

Having what was yours returned is not annexing Moon.

If you read the charter that is true only if the UN Protects the nation requiring being defended. That terrorist attacks, various wars such as the October War occurred, we know they did not thus Article 51 is in full force with all it's colors, bells and whistles Moon.

Do you need me to post Article 51 for you as you don't seem to have access to it by the way you go on .

I withdraw it as I smell somebody that doesn't seem to have a clue to what the resolution says as they are just throwing their own words and meanings into it so obviously has not looked at it to begin with thus, could not knowingly lie or tell the truth about this matter.

 

The United Nations rejected such piffle. The annexation- which you claimed never happened - is illegal

I repeat, the Security Council discharged its obligations of Article 51 via Resolution 242. mod edit>>>off topic/baiting

The withdrawal was adequate. The squid ink was unnecessary.

 

mod edit>>>off topic/baiting Do you wish me to post Article 51 for you?

mod edit>>>off topic/baiting It is only taken out of force if the UN protects the country using it. As seen by the continual attacks on poor Israel through terrorism and the Arab League the UN hasn't been able to do that so, they have to do it for themselves.

Oh, occupying land from which they were attacked from is legal as is taking back what was once theirs to begin with.

mod edit>>>off topic/baiting

 

Consider it waved.

 

Yes, that big blue Israeli flag waving over their land once again - returned.

 

I'd rather be subjected to moronic triumphalism than yawn-worthy pomposity disguised as gravitas.

 

I have more but you don't seem to even have the basics down what, with not knowing what Article 51 or 2 says. Let me know when you get that far.

 

Article 51 has been discussed extensively and its relevant clause- the addressing of conflict by the Security Council- has been met by Resolution 242. Some people, when up the proverbial creek, attempt to replace the missing paddle. Others just drift regardless.

 

Reported for trolling.

 

Wait a minute Drew, first you've said that Israel hasn't annexed anything, now you say that Israel hasn't annexed East Jerusalem, or the Golan.

Are you saying that at some point Israel has had these territories?

Where do you get that from? Are you referring to the recent ICJ ruling on occupied lands?

 

Then please show how 242 as a Chapter 6 resolution that is non binding guarantees safety to Israel so that Article 51 is non applicable as is stated in same. Please list the concrete guarantees the UN implemented to make this so.

 

Yes.

History. Ancient Jerusalem was Jewish and the Golan was as well. Since no time line in this struggle is put forth to an historical right to land it seems the Jews got there first and so have at the very least the right to same as the Palestinians if not more. In any case, you can't annex what is your already but you certainly can take it back.

 

Ancient history is irrelevant. It means nothing that some Jews lived on some land thousands of years ago. They left or were kicked out, and haven't returned until some sixty years ago.

If we were going to go by the argument of ancient history, then all white (and black) Americans should pack up their bags and leave America. Those who support this line of argument should have no problem with native Americans starting a violent caimpagn to retake America. They were there first, right?

We can move on to substantive issues when some people can get it through their thick skulls that ancient history is irrelevant.

 

"returned" is the wrong word in this context. People do not "return" to a place where they have never lived before. Rather, they relocate or immigrate to a new destination, creating a new home. People may argue that their new home is important to their religion or distant ancestry, but they are still immigrants to a foreign region.

For example, if a European relocated to Ethiopia, they could argue that they are the kin of those who may have lived there 60'000+ years ago, but they cannot argue that they "returned" to where they never lived.

 

Why do you say it was jewish? It has been lived on by so many others too.
Is your contention thats its jewish land anyway consistent with in international law?
How do people who've lived on land have no more rights than those jewish
Who've come from europe? Explain it to us please?

 

This is another one of your canards. Even if it was the case that Ancient Jerusalem was solely Jewish, is irrelevant. International law trumps perceived ancient historical claims. At one time in ancient history, Londinium belonged to the Roman Empire. Using your twisted logic, modern Italians have the legal right to throw me out of my London home predicated on the notion that Romans arrived in what is now modern day London before my ancestors.

 

I didn't say that you wanted my death. I'm not an Israeli. I said that your position on the Arab-Israeli conflict allows for only one solution as you see it. The only solution you'll accept is Israel's destruction. If I've misunderstand you, tell us what solution you do offer that would still allow Israel to exist.

The "arab powers had to intervene in 1948"?? NO, they didn't! Had the Arab powers complied with the UN decision on partition, there'd have been no reason to intervene. As I said in my post, the only reason for Arab intervention was their belief that Israel has no right to exist. This isn't brain surgery, it's very easy to understand. Since the Arab position was and remains that Israel has no right to exist, there is no room for negotiation or compromise. Are you starting to understand yet?

 

Actually, the Zionists would have still encroached upon the arab division. They claimed, right from the start, that the UN Partition under Resolution 181 did not provide them with adequate ' security '. The problem has always been that the Zionists only ever view borders as ' theirs '. They have never acknowledged any ' security ' concerns of the people facing Israel.

 

You obviously can't understand a cogent argument!

Let's see how illogical my conclusion was. IF you wish to prove my conclusion was wrong, it's quite easy. Describe to all of us what solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict would satisfy you, the Arabs, and the Palestinians, such that you'd allow Israel to exist in peace, and free from ALL future terrorist attacks and Arab invasions! Go for it!

 

The list of evidence of killing of innocents has been compiled by every humanitarian agency on the planet. The actions condemned by the UN on countless occasions (and even the US on a number of occasions).

European courts have ruled Israeli military leaders war criminals. And so on.

Only a complete idiot looks at the evidence and does not recognize that this is a blood feud and both sides are guilty of atrocities.

 

Let's get to the crux of the matter. I posted a question to which you may reply. An answer to the question I asked should move this discussion along much faster. The post and request is at Post #245.

 

A cinch- unless you're a neoZionist extremist. The solution is One State of Israel/Palestine under democracy.

 

Ok fair enough. My solution is the same as the PA's. Israel stops settlement activity now, Israel starts negotiations with it. East Jerusalem, the West Bank returned. Land swaps if Israel wishes to keep the settlements it has built. Golan back the Syrians, the Shatila farms back to Lebanon, Gaza left unmolested and a corridor created between the two parts of Palestine.

Yes I understand your point but no the reason for arab intervention was their concern for the Palestinians who didnt want their land divided with a settler minority, long before they invaded these people were already either being crushed by the British, blown up by jewish terror gangs or being herded from their villages by Jewish forces. Do you understand my point?

 

Thanks JPRD you describe this truism a lot better than I.

They say that land conquered by Islam is Muslim at perpetuity... except of course their defeat in France by Charles Martel and their departure out of Spain (Andalous) ruling it for 800 years