Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Speaks to the 69th UN General Assembly

The term after which a legal agreement is null and void even though it is agreed to be in force for a longer peiod.

That is correct and obviously two of them were dissatisfied by Egypt's breaking of the agreement.

And renegotiated and changed numerous times, the most recent was 19 October 1954, hardly a generation prior. In it, this agreement states that it is in force for seven years - termination in 1961 unless BOTH parties agree to change it. Nasser nationalized it without consulting with the other party.

The ones that show how one party is permitted without penalty to break an agreement and decide on their own with no input or negotiation with the other parties what compensation ought to be paid for doing so.

 

Because British troops had already left a few years before 1956 of their own accord.

Do you mean breaking the armistice or contravening international law by not allowing the free passage of enemy arms across their territory? Because that of course would be quite a different matter.

If theyre merely transporting goods across enemy territory then they likely just get searched and have contraband goods like weapons confiscated. If however they invade, stay a long time then declare the land theirs then they get bombs and counter attacks. Do you agree?

 

Sovereignty. Or even try Treaty.

Thats a shame, probably shouldnt have invaded and stayed for over a hundred years ruling the place as they liked, even installing their own rulers who then make deals with them that are to to their liking huh?

You should actually consider the history of imperialism before making these silly points.

Ah right, and if he 'consulted' the other party theyd have said no right? And they being contractors from a foreign land and he being the representative of a sovereign power they have both have equal weight under both common morality and the law right?

LOL.

Look up the wiki explanation of both Sovereign and Treaty. Shall I provide the link for you?

 

Now, provide the factual proof that a sovereign nation is permitted to break a treaty whenever they find it inconvenient without amending an existing agreement please.

LOL.

Like the Base Agreement of 1954 made with the democratic President of Egypt who proceeded Nasser that I referred to earlier. Nasser broke that agreement.

LOL.

Not making points rather, asking you to provide some substance to your claims that an agreement made by a democratic government can be broken whenever they feel like it simply because the leader finds it inconvenient.

Doubt that as money talks and, they may have agreed to negotiated terms but, as we all know none were made, offered or given which is against the agreement and it's various amendments the most recent of which was the Base Agreement of 1954 made with the democratic government of Egypt.

Correct.

LOL.

Thank you but no, I found them and neither aids your silly contention or rational.

LOL

 

Actually Egypt was at peace with Israel so the Israelis were not enemies. By declaring them such and forbidding them to use the canal as they were required to do was an act of war and justified the Israeli action (s) that followed.

"Recalling that in its resolution 73 (1949) of I I August 1949 relating to the conclusion of Armistice Agreements between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States it drew attention to the pledges in these Agreements "against any further acts of hostility between the parties.

Further noting that the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization recalled the statement of the senior Egyptian delegate in Rhodes on 13 January 1949, to the effect that his delegation was "inspired with every spirit of co-operation, conciliation and a sincere desire to restore peace in Palestine", and that the Egyptian Government has not complied with the earnest plea of the Chief of Staff made to the Egyptian delegate on 12 June 1951, that it desist from the present practice of interfering with the passage through the Suez Canal of goods destined for Israel"

 

Too easy;
Def. of sovereign
1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sovereign

LOL

LOL, and? The Suez Canal Company was owned by French interests who's government were in alliance with Egypt main enemy remember?

Remember sovereignty?

Its meaning seems lost on you. LOL.

Wow you dont even have the guts to stand by your own contention. Not surprised. Any way go read the reference given again.

Money doesnt talk at all, its an inert object made from pulped wood.

And no, terms were made; on Nasser's announcement of nationalisation it was also announced on what terms the interested parties would be compensated. And egypt paid off those parties by 1962.

LOL, sovereign powers and foreign contractors have no equal weight anywhere in the world. One makes legislation and enforces its rulings, the other earns money.

LOL, you clearly did not as your havent read them.

 

LOL are you serious?

1/ An armistice is not a peace treaty.

2/ Israel attacked egyptian forces in operation black arrow a year before in 1955. How on earth could it not be an enemy?

Are you ever going to read a book?

LOL

 

Indeed, they are permitted to make agreements on behalf of the nation. You do know what an agreement is don't you?



"a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action."

So, a sovereign nation is permitted to lie about their intent and break agreements whenever they wish in your book.

Egypt wasn't at war as they had signed an armistice in 1949 and therefore had no enemy remember? Heck, they abided by the agreement and allowed passage for all the ships of the world through the canal until Nasser broke the legal agreement.

I do. It is the power to make legally binding agreements on behalf of the nation, not a license to lie, cheat and break agreements rather than negotiate amendments to same.

Still waiting for you to show us how a sovereign nation is permitted to break legally binding agreements at will without recourse. I know that you consider that a mark of courage so who is the coward here, the guy asking for proof of wild azzed rants or the one making them and being too scared to provide the proof to back them up?.

It's an widely accepted expression Creation. That you have never heard it before doesn’t surprise me at all.

Here;

"Money talks.
Fig. Money gives one power and influence to help get things done or get one's own way.."

Correct, he made no terms, just broke a legally binding agreement that was made by the democratically elected and sovereign Egyptian Government and at the same time broke the peace agreement by declaring war against Israel by defining her as an enemy and so, was responsible for the hostilities to come.

They both have the same weight in an agreement as to following it’s terms though. That is why sovereign governments are taken to court frequently by corporations and citizens when they break those terms. In short, a government is not immune to following the terms of agreements they make with contractors – foreign or not.

Did too. They don't make your case in any way shape or form but rather show how out of touch you are with reality.

LOL.

Correct but it is the end of the state of war which means one is not an enemy.

In response to "February 25, 1955, Arab infiltrators murdered an Israeli civilian in the town of Rehovot.[5][6][7] One of the militants who was pursued and killed by Israeli forces was found to be in possession of documents linking him to Egyptian military intelligence."

So, Israel being at peace is not an enemy until Egypt sponsors attacks against it. Strange that Egypt was allowing her so called enemy passage through the canal all those years - well, until Nasser decided to break a legally binding agreement anyhow.

Do it yourself manuals on how to be an internet troll I leave to you.

 

LOL, my my you really dont get it. Read the definition again.

A sovereign power is the supreme authority, it has no obligation to do anything it perceives as against its own interests - thus indeed it can and does lie and break agreements. That occurs frequently and no legitimate authority exists to say or do otherwise.

LOL, you keep adding meanings on to the term armistice. An armistice is between two enemies who have chosen not to fight for the time being. Its not between two adversaries who have decided to become friends.

They stopped Israei shipping for years, searching them for contraband and allowed and later supported Palestinians to fight for their farms and homes back for years too.

Wrong, it is power and authority itself, supreme authority to be precise. Its a licence to do anything you perceive as in your interest. Its in the defintion, which clearly you havent read.

LOL, it doesnt need permission, its sovereign remember? The definition? Thats the proof. Why are you still waiting?

Do you somehow think there exists a power, entity with greater sovereignty? What is it?

LOL. Since you dont like reading definitions I thought Id just make you go get one of your own. Oh and look you spent your time getting a Gif image rather than reading a book - again how unsurprising.

LOL, I just mentioned the terms he made on the day he announced annexation - so he did make terms - you dont even bother reading posts. Too busy embarrassing yourself with stupid teenage Gif images.

When did he declare war against Israel? He in fact operated against it, just as it operated against Egypt, without committing his forces to war.

LOL this is the best yet - they are indeed taken to court, AFTER the fact, and they pay compensation or change their ways only if they havent already taken action to make their original actions, like breaking agreements, completely legal and retrospective - again as sovereign they have supreme authority.

LOL, did not. You keep assuming there is some other authority to bring them to book. You didnt read or understand the meaning of sovereignty. Just you assume armistice means peace treaty etc.

Rubbish it just means an end to the fighting.

LOL, it certainly is an enemy, it pushed hundreds of thousands of refugees onto egypt and took their land. The armistice ended the fighting - thats all it ended.

It was allowing passage to Israel as it wanted to respect the international nature of the canal, however, Israel being an enemy it had to make sure Israel wasnt trying to arm itself using its own waterway.

LOL, my behaviour here is exemplary but when you combine your common traits of Gif and emoticon postings with your usual smug evasion and ignorance its clear you are the troll.

 

Of course they can illegally break agreements just as Israel can legally resume the war against them.

If they were continuing to be considered an enemy they never would have signed the agreement. In any case, Egypt broke the agreement so, Israel legally resumed the war against the illegal actions of Nasser.

You mean terrorize. Yes, they certainly did that which is why Israel's actions were legal pertaining to Egypt.

My goodness, you just legitimized every Israeli action from 1948 onward to this very day. Congratulations!

And to boot, Israel doesn't ever have to obey any UNSC Resolutions according to you. I sense you will be quite silent on these forums when all we have to do is point out your position pertaining to sovereign nations and their rights according to your new found argument. The right to refrain from adhering to the GC, UN Charter, aiding Palestinians by opening supply routes and border crosssings, and settlements, well, they are now all legal and the right of Israel to do whatever they wish to boot!

This is a new day for you Creation!

LOL X 1,000!

Force. Israel has it so is right in all aspects of this argument according to your rule of sovereignty.

X 1,000

I see your point, Israel is perfectly right in doing any and everything they have done, do and .... will do as they are a sovereign nation.

When he broke the armistice. He did that in July 1956. It calls for a resumption of hostilities when one does this which is the same as a declaration of war.

Or in this case, they get bombed and beaten militarily by one or all of the grieved parties - all perfectly legal of course as Israel is a sovereign nation.

You have changed my mind Creation. Sovereignty rules in spades! Israel can do whatever it wishes and it is all legal. Nothing wrong with attacking Egypt or to make settlements or to keep Gaza full of refugees till the end of time as they are a sovereign nation.

This new argument of yours is great!

And breaking it resumes the fighting, all legal of course and, as Israel is a sovereign nation - completely justified and moral.

It can't though as Israel is a sovereign nation and thus has the right to re arm itself and, to attack whomever they wish - whenever - particularly when they break agreements.

LOL!

It's only pictures Creation. If it bothers you just turn your graphics off. Anyhow, since all nations can do whatever they wish according to you, looks like there isn't much to talk about now that Israel is in the right on all counts - any and everywhere at anytime.

 

LOL, the actions, such as breaking the lease agreement pertained to areas withing their soveriegn territory. Not between sovereign territories.

LOL, bull, they only stopping the fighting. They were not considering each other friends at all.

Yes terrorising the Israeli terrorists and trying to get your farms and homes back. Which is why Egypts actions were legal pertaining to Israel.

Sovereignty means supreme authority within the territory, not across all territories. LOL

LOL, is that within or between territories? Let us know how you see it. Im fascinated.

LOL, Egypts higher sovereignty was held by some entity called Force, which Israel has also? LOL

Of course, within their own sovereign territory.

He broke the armistice in 56 by nationalising the Suez? Is that what youre saying now?

LOL, it seems your having trouble with the concept of sovereignty over a territory.

Again confusing sovereignty over a domestic affair vs a foreign affair. Sad really.

Of course, which is exactly Israel was happy with an armistice. After all, it had designs on more land.

Of course, but not through Egyptian sovereign territory. You can see the truth now.

It doesnt bother me, I like them. Theyre amusing and they show me what kind of person Im communicating with here. Im hoping youll do more, but then again maybe you wont have time to read a book. But then you arent going to anyway.

Again go and read the definition of sovereignty in more detail. Now you accept it has supreme authority you suddenly think this applies outwith its own borders. Think again.

Keep at it, I know you can come to a fuller understanding.

 

Nice try but, when it invaded Israel it lost all legitimacy as a sovereign nation as far as Israel was concerned as they had declared war, attacked over borders and thus, Israel didn't have to abide by nonsense like agreements and such - merely defend herself by whatever means they saw and see fit to this day as any sovereign nation sees fit. As I said, thanks for siding with many of us by providing an argument stating that all Israeli actions to this day are sound and well founded in sovereignty.

Glad you like the pics too!

 

LOL, now youre all over the place.

First you refer to the lease agreement, then you refer to the armistice agreement, and now you tell us Egypt isnt a sovereign nation anyway because it invaded Israel in 1948.

Nevermind that one cannot lose sovereignty by invading another area the sheer ignorance in your history is startling; Egypt invaded Palestine, not Israel, it moved onto the Arab areas.

As for defending itelf by whatever means it sees fit - of course. Thats why it got the bomb too, the same also goes for all the arab powers surrounding it and the Palesinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

But of course you do recognise that sovereignty over one's own area does not mean you have supreme authority over another area and therefore there remains no justification for the annexation of territory or the settlement of occupied lands.

But sure go ahead, show us some more pics........its about all youve got left.

 

The second you declare war on, threaten and invade another's land you are at war which according to your argument, allows the other sovereign nation to destroy you in any way shape or form they feel advantageous to their peoples or nation. In short, the second Egypt declared war on Israel and attacked her, which, if you opened any book occurred on 15 May 1948, you have given the nation of Israel carte blanche to destroy whomever threatens them. Once Israel allowed the UN to make up an armistice (which Nasser foolishly broke) it resumed the destruction of the Egyptian forces - all legal of course, they showed their willingness for peace and, in later breaking of the armistices and agreements, Egypt lost more territories and Israel gained more land in their legal actions to protect their sovereignty over the captured lands to the point where it just became so obvious that they would own all of Northern Africa if they didn't try to throw the Arabs a bone and offer Egypt a treaty of some kind - which of course, the Egyptians were only too happy to break yet again (as if agreements meant anything to them anyhow) leaving the Israelis with the only option but to attack and decimate the Arab armies when they once again posed mischief against them in '67.

More pics, you bet! Which one did you like? It's easy, just right click then left on 'view image,' Golly, you need me to instruct you at how to download images now on top of showing how your 'sovereign' argument shows how Israel is completely right in doing everything they have, are and ever will do. Anyhow, as you weren't specific, here's a new one;;

 

LOL, not even managing paragraphs now? Here let me break it up for you.

Of course, but we both agree that sovereignty extends only within one's own borders, outwith those borders matter between sovereign powers are dealt with by international law.

Therefore, Egypt was perfectly within its right to nationalise the Suez canal company - even you admit that. That point is now over and no more to be contested by you.

In 1948, Israel was indeed entitled to act in its own defence, as were the Palestinians and all the surrounding arab powers. None however, Israel or the arab powers, were entitled to annex land they had taken.

We both agree on that.

No while breaking armistices or agreements is legal, annexing the land gained in war is not.

And now you can see why no real peace was achieved by Israel and Egypt until Egypt attacked Israel in 1973, forcing its first major defeats in battle and encouraging Israelis to give back land they sought to annex in exchange for peace. This is the difference between an armistice and a peace agreement.

Anything you wish to ask me about please let me know, its about time we had a conversation about the history of the area again.

Thats great! I love it!

But also, can you tell me what books youve been reading when you show me your next picture?

 

International law is emphatically not worthless, otherwise we would not have seen the prosecutions of the likes of Milosevic, Mladic, Charles Taylor and other war criminals at the ICJ in the Hague. Nuremberg might also ring a few bells...
Naturally there are those nations, notably the USA, who ignore rulings in international law citing 'non-recognition' of the court. Of course, had the court ruled in favour of the USA I wonder if the situation would be reversed with the USA singing its praises...

 

Im not going to appolegize Jews running away from Nazi Europe or those poor survivors that nobody else wanted, the Jews in Palestine had every right (and duty) to save them and offer them a home. its cruel to suggest otherwise and false to suggest this fact ment WAR on the Arabs.

What time period are you talking about ? when Arabs made clear they refuse Jewish immigration the Brits halted it, Im sure you heard the stories.

What pro-Israeli policies are you talking about?

First you should stop addressing the Arabs as Palestinians and Jews as.....something else, at that time everyone were Palestinians, the Jews simply created a state of their own.
And you got that boycott thing all wrong, the Arabs were the ones that boycotted Jews, that started in 1936 by closing Jaffa Arab harbour - which led the Jews to build a "Jewish" harbour in Tel Aviv, that and other boycotts actually created the Jewish indipendant economy.

They felt second class citizens even before there was a state ??? who discriminated against them ?

I know of two terror groups that will disagree, youll mention them as well when it serves you....

That's a nice story, what about facts to back it up?, what is your first recorded Jewish violent attack against the Arabs ?

The Jews fought the Brits when they refused Holocaust survivors to reach Palestine, halting Jewish immigration with no right to do so and tormenting the survivors.

It was hostile only when Arabs decided they will not tolerate this immigration, NOT because Holocaust survivors decided they want to see more blood and attacked poor helpless Arabs,

Who halted Arab immigration that you think Jewish one should have been stopped ?

 

The Jews in Palestine at the time of the exodus from Nazi Germany were already a mixture of European Zionists Jews and the local Jews of the Levant. The design was always to establish a Jewish homeland in some area of the world. A few places were discussed, but the most ideal was the Levant. While the Jewish past is tragic, the land of the levant was not owned by Jews. Jews were a very small minority of that land, which was composed mostly of Muslim and Christian Palestinians. The only concievable right I could have forseen from this war was that a part of Germany be made the Jewish homeland as Germany was the offender, not the Palestinians.

The Arabs were not angered until the Jews began to receive increasingly more pronounced rights to land and rights in their own homeland.

Basically, everything. The British were unambiguously pro-Jewish. In every dispute or settlement the Jews had gained a disproportionate favoritism and then the Jews began their own policies like "Jobs for Jews" which only hired Jews and refused Arabs, as well as other shady legal concoctions designed to disenfranchise and dispossess Arab's of their land.

Everyone was not Palestinians. A lot of them were European immigrants who were strategically refused entry into other countries that they favored to go to when leaving Germany.

Also, the Arab resistance to the increasing Jewish population defended by the British at the detriment to the native Palestinian Muslims and Christians are what prompted the Arab boycotts.

Jewish people. In the same way Native Americans felt like second class citizens before their was a "United States". The discrimination, as well, is similar.

I'm not sure what you mean. The British were overwhelmingly Pro-Jewish. However, the Jewish were so fanatical about creating their homeland that any attempts by the British to calm the antagonism between the Jews and the Palestinians- which, for the British, was to limit further Jewish aggression against them by codifying certain boundaries and rights- was met with hostility- perhaps by the two terrrorist groups you mention.

That doesn't make sense. The British had no right to allow Jewish immigration to begin with. It is not their land.

The Jewish violence against the Arab's was not physical, at first. The Arab's were the physical instigators, violently resisting what they perceived as a takeover of their land and rights by the Jewish via the British in what I gather was a bloody affair althogether.

The physical violence that came as a result of a takeover of their land by British and Zionist forces. The European powers were not only carving up Arab areas outside of Palestine, but were increasing the number of Jewish immigration into the area which, for the Palestinians, were known to be a protected class- given certain rights and powers and such above that of Arabs. Also, the Zionist plan was not unknown.

The Jaffa riots were started by an illegal march between Jewish Communists and the Jewish Labor Organization (the latter who were the Zionists who employed such things as Hebrew-language only policies). The resultant clash was broken up by both Jews and Arabs, but Arabs afar had believed other Arab's were being attacked, which led to the riots targeting Jewish immigration. The British rose to the defense of the Jews, and this was the precursor to the Jewish juggernaut. In response to this obvious dislplay of resentment to the immigration of Jews in the homeland, Jewish immigration was yet increased, the Jews armed exceedingly above their Palestinian counterparts, and the eventual land-grab would commence under the Mapai Party, which bridged the Zionist ideals to the poltical ideals of all Jews in the area.

The immigration, itself, is a hostile act, especially when done without the permission or against the wishes of the inhabitants of the land as it would have been in any other land.

I guess you mean who halted the Jewish immigration? The British did, after the Jaffa Riots, as they perceived the Jewish immigration to be the main instigator of the violence, as they were so advised by the resident Muslim and Christian political representatives.

 

In your reality where agreements can be broken at will by anyone at any time this would be the case.

Certainly Israel had that right as they were a sovereign power that happened to take the Egyptian land which then became their land under their sovereign rule. Like, the way you go on, you must think some agreement somewhere which no sovereign power must obey disallows this when they have rule over that land.

I you would agree on anything to save your limp argument to tell the truth.

LOL BTW.

Since Israel is a sovereign power and, has their own laws and courts I take it they themselves took themselves to court over this matter and have found this action to be illegal? Please cite the details on this case.

Actually they came begging as they continued to have their azzes handed to them on the battlefield so nothing else worked and they knew pretty much that Israel controlled their land and, in a state of war in which they were didn't have to give anything back. In fact, as a sovereign nation who controlled that land, Israel would, if they wished, never have to give anything back to anybody at anytime according to your silly logic.

Actually, you have still been unable to answer the questions and provide the proof to back up your silly contentions that I posed when we began this conversation so I doubt that bringing forth new ones will shine any light on your silly contentions but, if you wish, you may run along to post #145 and try to provide the factual proof which you were asked to produce days ago which you have not even begun to address. Once you do so we can then move ahead.

LOL by the way.

Glad I could make you happy. Say, in return, could you answer the questions and provide the proof of your wild silly contentions that I requested in post #145?

Sure, be happy to once you address the request for factual support I posed in #145 rather than skirting the issue with unrelated counter questions and tall tales. Do you have the proof or not?

 

LOL. We both agree that sovereignty extends only within one's own borders, outwith those borders matter between sovereign powers are dealt with by international law.

Therefore, Egypt was perfectly within its right to nationalise the Suez canal company - even you admit that. That point is now over and no more to be contested by you.

Youve now tried to pretend that sovereignty allows control by which power takes the land militarily, but of course international law says quite different and clearly in the UN charter.

But of course if you disagree with anything Ive feel free to cite the international law, precedent or decree which makes me wrong and you correct.

Dealt with above.

Actually they didnt come begging, they offered peace for land long before 1973 and after. Even though it won the war, it realised how close it had come and how debilitating a longer campaign would be. Yet Israel didnt accept until after its first major defeat.

Indeed, you can find it readily in posts numbering from #146 onwards, specifically where I reference the actual meaning of sovereignty.

I will also reference the UN charter if you wish, perhaps you can use to support an opposite contention.

Indeed, you can find it readily in posts numbering from #146 onwards, specifically where I reference the actual meaning of sovereignty.

Sure no problem you can find it readily in posts numbering from #146 onwards, specifically where I reference the actual meaning of sovereignty. If you dont find that satisfactory you can just detail your specific objections.

Now how about that learning youve been doing?

 

That is the case under normal circumstances however, article 51 of the UN Charter allows a nation to take whatever actions it needs to including occupation and seizure of land in order to defend itself. In fact, the GC has rules about occupation for occupiers as they recognize that occupiers inherit sovereign responsibility over the lands they have seized.

Hardly, I acknowledged that it is physically possible to do so howe3er, cited it as being illegal and justifies the violent actions of those aggrieved parties.

Strange, the Geneva Conventions state otherwise but then again, we all know you don't have a clue about international law don't we?

LOL X 50.

Article 51 of the UN Charter, Hague Regulations of 1907 as well as by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

Your counter argument placed in a straight jacket and given ample sedative above.

X 100.

Got some more of the stuff you been smoking?

"The Egyptians were unable to advance further,[129] and Egyptian armored attacks on October 9 and 10 were repulsed with heavy losses."

"The Egyptian 1st Mechanized Brigade launched a failed attack southward along the Gulf of Suez in the direction of Ras Sudar. Leaving the safety of the SAM umbrella, the force was attacked by Israeli aircraft and suffered severe losses."

"Still bruised by the extensive losses their commandos had suffered on the opening day of the war, the Egyptians were unable or unwilling to implement further commando operations that had been planned in conjunction with the armored attack.[137] The Egyptian armored thrust suffered heavy losses. "

"The Egyptian attack was decisively repelled. At least 250 Egyptian tanks[140][141][142][143] and some 200 armored vehicles[141] were destroyed. Egyptian casualties exceeded 1,000.[143][144] Fewer than 40 Israeli tanks were hit and all but six of them were repaired by Israeli maintenance crews and returned to service.[141] Israeli casualties were light."

"The Israelis immediately followed their success of October 14 with a multidivisional counterattack through the gap between the Egyptian 2nd and 3rd Armies"

And this one you'll love! ..........

"Early on October 18, the Soviets showed Sadat satellite imagery of Israeli forces operating on the west bank. Alarmed, Sadat dispatched Shazly to the front to assess the situation first hand. He no longer trusted his field commanders to provide accurate reports.[163] Shazly confirmed that the Israelis had at least one division on the west bank and were widening their bridgehead. He advocated withdrawing most of Egypt's armor from the east bank to confront the growing Israeli threat on the west bank. Sadat rejected this recommendation outright and even threatened Shazly with a court martial.[164] Ahmad Ismail Ali recommended that Sadat push for a cease-fire so as to prevent the Israelis from exploiting their successes."

"By the end of the war, the Israelis had advanced to positions some 101 kilometres from Egypt's capital, Cairo, and occupied 1,600 square kilometres west of the Suez Canal.[178] They had also cut the Cairo-Suez road and encircled the bulk of Egypt's Third Army. The Israelis had also taken many prisoners after Egyptian soldiers, including many officers, began surrendering in masses towards the end of the war.[179] The Egyptians held a narrow strip on the east bank of the canal, occupying some 1,200 square kilometres of the Sinai.[179] One source estimated that the Egyptians had 70,000 men, 720 tanks and 994 artillery pieces on the east bank of the canal.[180] However, between 30,000 to 45,000 of them were now encircled by the Israelis."



"He further noted that, "the fate of the Egyptian Third Army was in the hands of Israel. Once the Third Army was encircled by Israeli troops every bit of bread to be sent to our men was paid for by meeting Israeli demands."

The final nail in your rubber room contention is this one;

"Egypt wished to end the war when they realized that the I.D.F canal crossing offensive could result in a catastrophe.[213] The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[16] The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo, which worried Egypt"

So taking half of Port Said, Ismailia, encircling Suez and being within walking distance of Damascus and Cairo to you is a victory for Egypt?

Oh, and prior to saying that Israel couldn't hold on in it's positions in Egypt is a fallacy as they could destroy the Third Army, then shift to Golan and destroy the five divisions there and then destroy the rest of the Egyptian military at will. It would have taken another few weeks which Israel could have managed.

"The Syrians prepared for a massive counteroffensive to drive Israeli forces out of Syria, scheduled for October 23. A total of five Syrian divisions were to take part, alongside the Iraqi and Jordanian expeditionary forces. The Soviets had replaced most of the losses Syria's tank forces had suffered during the first weeks of the war.

However, the day before the offensive was to begin, the United Nations imposed its ceasefire (following the acquiescence of both Israel and Egypt). Abraham Rabinovich claimed that "The acceptance by Egypt of the cease-fire on Monday [October 22] created a major dilemma for Assad. The cease-fire did not bind him, but its implications could not be ignored. Some on the Syrian General Staff favored going ahead with the attack, arguing that if it did so Egypt would feel obliged to continue fighting as well.... Others, however, argued that continuation of the war would legitimize Israel's efforts to destroy the Egyptian Third Army. In that case, Egypt would not come to Syria's assistance when Israel turned its full might northward, destroying Syria's infrastructure and perhaps attacking Damascus".[30]

Ultimately, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad decided to cancel the offensive. On October 23, the day the offensive was to begin, Syria announced that it had accepted the ceasefire, and ordered its troops to cease-fire, while the Iraqi government ordered its forces home."

Hardly, once again you run and hide as you stated, about the agreement and the ceasefire that

"future generations are not logically bound by the decisions of the previous"

I then asked you to define and prove same as to the time limit any or all agreements made by nations are in effect. You then rambled on about sovereignty and such which is not a time limit nor is it proof of your contention but rather a definition.

You also stated that;

" it just means the other side no longer has to abide by its own obligations."

I asked you to show us all some actual proof showing that a nation does not have to abide by the agreements it makes and, as per usual you never did.

No need, article 51 allows Israel to resume hostilities, occupy and use their sovereign power to extend to the territories they occupy.

Still waiting for anything of substance to come my way from you pertaining to the questions in #145.

Not much more than before as I had already known you didn't have a clue for a few days now and are just waffling your way through this in the hopes you won't have to provide the proof you've been asked for.

 

The land Jews were sitting on - was Jewish land and they could have ANYONE living with them just as ANY Arab could have anyone living with him, that includes Thousands of "work immigrants" from Jordan, Syria and Egypt.

No one including the Brits had any right to refuse Jewish refugees immigration to Jewish land in Palestine,

The land Arabs sat on was Arab and the land Jews sat on was Jewish, if you imply that Jews somehow stole land or conqured land during the Ottomans or Mandate - I like to see some facts please. what is this "takeover" of Arab land ? what event are you talking about ?

Your reply about Jewish discrimination against Arabs is contredicted by the great Arab revolt in 1936, Arabs went on strike and refused to sell, trade, work for or hire Jews and closed the Jaffa harbour - in attempt to strangle the Jewish settelment, it went on for 175 days, so are you talking about before 1936 or after ?

 

I meant if it was OK for Jordinians to come work and live in Palestine - it was OK for Jews as well, no one counted Arab heads did they ?, I agree ofc that Jews came in much greater numberes but we are talking about RIGHTS and that has to come from legal perspective, now try to raise arguments that dont discriminate Jews from Arabs and try to address both natives the same please.

 

Well that was the law and the world leaders of the time agreed to it including Egypt rulers, I expect if the world powers would pay and execute a tunnel from the MED sea throu the Negev and till teh Red sea - Israel would allow international free travel, I dont recall any threats on Egypt by allowing all ships to travel there, it was a national ego act not threats of invasion...

 

Against ??? hell no, Arab dictators are the only thing that hold the ME together, only Americans and Europeans will think Democracy will work on them.