Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"Should Israel get a free pass"
No, but we shouldn't say they invaded Palestine either.
In 1967 Israel invaded Palestine
Resolution 242 was passed in the wake of the June ’67 war and called for the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” While the above argument enjoys widespread popularity, it has no merit whatsoever.
The central thesis of this argument is that the absence of the word “the” before “occupied territories” in that clause means not “all of the occupied territories” were intended. Essentially, this argument rests upon the ridiculous logic that because the word “the” was omitted from the clause, we may therefore understand this to mean that “some of the occupied territories” was the intended meaning.
Grammatically, the absence of the word “the” has no effect on the meaning of this clause, which refers to “territories”, plural. A simple litmus test question is: Is it territory that was occupied by Israel in the ’67 war? If yes, then, under international law and Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from that territory. Such territories include the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
The French version of the resolution, equally authentic as the English, contains the definite article, and a majority of the members of the Security Council made clear during deliberations that their understanding of the resolution was that it would require Israel to fully withdraw from all occupied territories.
Additionally, it is impossible to reconcile with the principle of international law cited in the preamble to the resolution, of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. To say that the U.N. intended that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war would fly in the face of this cited principle.
One could go on to address various other logical fallacies associated with this frivolous argument, but as it is absurd on its face, it would be superfluous to do so.
Funny, you are more critical of my mistakes, than you are of hers. And she wants to write federal laws, I'm not someone who impacts your life.
You claimed I make mistakes because I'm prejudiced against liberals. Using your logic, do you presume she's lying about Israel because she doesn't like the Jews? You have fun wrestling your way out of that.
"Wrong rally"
She was at a rally to stump for a candidate, and a convicted cop killer received a shout out at that rally. Is that true, or is that false?
False
Your party has made cop killer Abu Mumia Jamal a hero. Good for you.thats the guy who has been in prison for the last 40 years for a crime he was convicted of, his other crime that really pisses you off is that he is a virulent writer and activist that spends his time pursuing issues that are important to him. But as I have said many times before I am not a democrat, but then lets look at who some republicans have called great lately: Putin, Dutarte, Kim, all of whom have killed a lot more people than one police officer
"Last I knew none of my relatives in Norway had an oil well"
Again, it's called hyperbole. They have a lot of oil, and they have mostly white people. If you moved Mexico to the southern border of Norway, and made it an open border, Norway would look a lot different in a few years.
|