Thread: Resolution 242; What it REALLY means

Originally Posted by moon

It is illegal to acquire territory by means of war, no matter what flavor of war you would like to invent.

Please cite for me international law forcing Israel to forfeit any territory seized during the '67 War. I'll save the the trouble--None exists.

The loss of land is a key deterrent to warfare. You cannot try to destroy a country, lose land in the process, lose the war, then, turn around and expect Israel to hit the reset button and return land and make believe nothing happened. If only life were so simple.

Resolution 242 simply cites the law regarding the illegality of the acquisition of territory by means of war. It doesn't comprise the law in itself. You're clearly uninformed and therefore unfit to challenge any of the information contained in this thread. Not that I have any expectations of your forthcoming humility with regard to the topic.

I have studied 242. 242 is non-binding and, in any case, does not compel Israel to forfeit all land seized. There is no rule in int'l law forcing Israel to surrender land seized defensively in war.

Edwin;

Please cite for me international law forcing Israel to forfeit any territory seized during the '67 War. I'll save the the trouble--None exists.

You mean that ' none exists ' in your head. For everybody else try, for starters, the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, ' definitively glossed by the Nuremberg trials '. Then look at the Geneva Conventions, to which Israel is signatory, and then try the Charter of the United Nations. As well an ability to convince by means of deceit, a clue is what you also don't have.

Originally Posted by moon

Edwin;


You mean that ' none exists ' in your head. For everybody else try, for starters, the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, ' definitively glossed by the Nuremberg trials '. Then look at the Geneva Conventions, to which Israel is signatory, and then try the Charter of the United Nations. As well an ability to convince by means of deceit, a clue is what you also don't have.

I might be wrong but doesnt that kellog-briand peace pact needs to be signed in order for it to go in effect, Israel and many arabs nations never signed it so it doesnt count right?

Also what part of the charter should that part about conquering land be?

Originally Posted by moon

Edwin;


You mean that ' none exists ' in your head. For everybody else try, for starters, the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, ' definitively glossed by the Nuremberg trials '. Then look at the Geneva Conventions, to which Israel is signatory, and then try the Charter of the United Nations. As well an ability to convince by means of deceit, a clue is what you also don't have.

The Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact outlaws war, so, you're a bit confused. It was enacted after World War I---Didn't influence the Arabs much, did it? It has no impact on forfeiture of land seized in a defensive war.

Geneva law also does not compel return of land acquired in a defensive war nor does the UN Charter do so.

You're grasping at straws.

No, I'm afraid you've already sunk. I know more about bovine obstetrics than you appear to know about international law.

Originally Posted by moon

No, I'm afraid you've already sunk. I know more about bovine obstetrics than you appear to know about international law.

So you cannot show me where in the UN charter it says so? Or?

Originally Posted by moon

No, I'm afraid you've already sunk. I know more about bovine obstetrics than you appear to know about international law.

Thus far, you have failed to successully refute me on international law nor any other matter.

So you cannot show me where in the UN charter it says so? Or?

I'm quite happy to let you stew for a while yet.

Now then, you've claimed that there are no Palestinians, and that there is no such thing as neo-Zionism and that there is no Israeli occupation of the West Bank. How do you account for all the hundreds of thousands of reputable references to these phenomena ?

Originally Posted by moon

I'm quite happy to let you stew for a while yet.

Now then, you've claimed that there are no Palestinians, and that there is no such thing as neo-Zionism . How do you account for all the hundreds of thousands of reputable references to these phenomena ?

So you accept it doesnt exist, you use the term ' international law' a lot in your posts but you seem to duck out the moment someone asks you for reference,

1 of your ' laws' has no effect on Israel since they never signed the treaty. and the other one you refuse to give.

keep digging your hole further.

Originally Posted by moon

I'm quite happy to let you stew for a while yet.

Now then, you've claimed that there are no Palestinians, and that there is no such thing as neo-Zionism . How do you account for all the hundreds of thousands of reputable references to these phenomena ?

Nowhere in UN Res. 242 are "Palestinians" even mentioned. Nor, are Palestinians mentioned in UN Res. 181 according statehood to Arabs in Palestine.

Arabs adopted the characterization of "Palestinian" fairly recently. Prior to the reestablishment of Israel, Jews were known as Palestinians. Arabs were...Arabs. Arabs in the area of Palestine, historically, were never known as Palestinians.