[W:534] Ben Gurion On The Reaction Of The Arabs To The Creation Of Israel

[oneworld2]

The claim attempted in post #512 that there is any such thing as international law is just another demonstration of the poster's frenzy when he is shown to disqualify himself once more.

The claim that the UN passes laws being so blatantly false that it deserves no further address.

Your obvious contempt for the advocacy of international law and denial of its reality doesn't come as a surprise if you understand that those who engage in it are nearly always moral thugs whose selective applications cause them no end of having to perform multiple somersualts as different actors are considered

The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Some of its actions have international law implications, such as those that relate to peacekeeping missions, ad hoc tribunals, and sanctions. The binding nature of resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter is particularly relevant in researching this topic.
In accordance with Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute, the Security Council can refer certain situations to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), if it appears international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, the crime of aggression) have been committed.

Research Guides: UN International Law Documentation: Security Council & International Law

Research Guides: UN International Law Documentation: Security Council & International Law

research.un.org

Obviously you have no knowledge of how international law was used to oust Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait or how it was used to show US criminality towards Nicaragua etc etc

 

[oneworld2]

Tu quoque regurgitation.

Obviously you don't wish to consider any other groups as having played their part in rejectionist documents towards the opposite side and can only repeat the mantra of Hamas. it's Hamas, nobody else, just Hamas etc etc

Intentional ignorance acknowledged and expected

 

[Chagos]

Tu quoque regurgitation.

One of the last resorts of those totally impotent in debate and thus justifiably listed as a logical fallacy.

 

[Chagos]

There is no such thing as international law all on its own and the UN passes no such thing. Resolution(s) passed on Iraq's occupation of Kuwait are a different matter not related to the abstract concept of "international law" either.

 

[oneworld2]

Just to point out another demonstration of the OP's dishonesty, the US has not voted against a two state solution. Subsequently it CANNOT have a 40 year record of having done that.

Repeating lies time and time again appears to be the only out for those not capable of presenting actual facts, but it doesn't work that way.

The issues which the OP frenziedly tries to interpose with post #523 changing nothing in his claim of the US rejecting a two-state solution being a lie.

His fantasy of anyone feeling the need to hide from him being so absurd that it deserves only a resounding

If you can't refute you can certaunly just troll as is the case with the above.

Every year at the UNGA they vote on the peaceful resolution of the question of Palestine. They've been doing it since the 70's and every year the votes are usually around the 150-60 for it and around 10 against it. Of those ten there are to be found the Israeli and USA rejection of it. So yes they do have a 40 odd year record of voting against ( and thus scuppering any progress because the US vote agains tis in fact a veto due to UNSC member power).

Anyone can research this for themselves and know that the above poster is the only poster engaging in dishonesty here.

Here's another article relaying the 2020 vote they had, this time only 5 in opposition and 163 for the motion which is a negotiated settlement for a Palestinian state alongside the Israeli one made up from the OPTs, including East Jerusalem.

He can choose to be an willful ostrich but you don't have to

A United Nations General Assembly committee endorsed on Thursday by an overwhelming majority a draft resolution recognizing "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine."


163 states voted in favor, including Canada, where Jewish groups were split between condemning the government's decision to vote in favor and applauding it. Only five states – Israel, the United States, Micronesia, Nauru and the Marshall Islands – voted against the draft resolution, while Australia, Rwanda and eight others abstained.

But hey, there's no evidence lol

UN votes overwhelmingly in support of Palestinian self-determination

While Pompeo Makes Unprecedented Visit to a West Bank Settlement, a General Assembly Committee Redoubled Its Commitment to a Two-state Solution With 163 States Voting in Favor

www.haaretz.com

 

[oneworld2]

There is no such thing as international law all on its own and the UN passes no such thing. Resolution(s) passed on Iraq's occupation of Kuwait are a different matter not related to the abstract concept of "international law" either.

UNSC resolutions are legally binding. The UN can and did sanction the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991 using the international laws contained in the UN Charter .

UNSC 678 was the ultimatum for Hussein to get his troops out before other member states were granted the right to oust them.

You are just completely ignorant on the subject and embarrassingly so, you are just too up yourself to realize it lol

 

[Chagos]

Resolutions of the UNSC do not constitute the passing of international law by the UN, seeing how the UN has no authority of doing any such thing in the absence of agreement by all parties.

Since such overall agreement (IOW by everyone) constitutes the primary hurdle for establishing an international law that is binding for everyone, the concept remains abstract.

In related context of which the fact remains that the US does not have a 40 year record of voting against a two-state solution, seeing how it never did any such thing either.

No amount of frenzied flailing about by the poster in the futile attempt of cementing his fallacious arguments can change anything in that.

The accompanying ad-homs change nothing either, but serve to confirm once more the prudence of not directly engaging the poster in question.

 

[Chagos]

Nation-states observe the principle of par in parem non habet imperium, 'Between equals there is no sovereign power'. This is affirmed in Article 2 (1) of the UN Charter, which holds that no state is in subjection to any other state. John Austin therefore asserted that 'so-called' international law, lacking a sovereign power and so unenforceable, was not really law at all, but "positive morality", consisting of "opinions and sentiments...more ethical than legal in nature."

Because the bulk of international law comes from treaties, which are binding only on the parties that ratify or accede to them,

If legislation is the making of laws by a person or assembly binding on the whole community, there is no such thing as international law. For treaties bind only those who sign them.

criticisms

The claim in post #512 that Israel has signed agreement to either the UN Charter and/or Article IV of the Geneva Convention does not cover the fact that it holds the application of either to not be de jure in the field of settlements.

One can argue the validity of this stance and numerous international legal scholars do just that, both pro and con. But that changes nothing in the obtuseness, intended or accidental, of the OP to recognize that the claim of there being any such thing as international law as anything but the expression of abundant ignorance.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

The topic is not each other. Discuss the topic or face the consequences.

 

[AFrench2]

Moderator's Warning:

The topic is not each other. Discuss the topic or face the consequences.

O__O

 

[NO1]

Yes, a Home for the Jewish people not a homeland.
The Zionists, led by Wieseman in 1919 demanded that the League of Nations not use the words Jewish Home but the words Jewish Homeland which had a legal meaning that Jewish Home did not have. As a "Jewish Homeland" they demanded legal rights to Palestine, Trans Jordan, parts of Lebanon and Syria and that this legal right be stated as legitimate based on a their historic claims to that area. England, did not agree, declared their control over Palestine , refused Zionists legal rights to anything, except to buy land and settle in Palestine. England reduced the borders to Palestine and refused to include in the agreement the claim of historic right of Jews to the land.

The league of nations took that decision in 1922, San Remo conference was in 1920.

The Jews have legal rights in that land, from Balfour declaration, San Remo to the League of Nations which unanimously agree to establish a national home for the Jewish people. It says –

“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”

Which means they do recognize the long history of the Jewish people in that land and it being the homeland of the Jewish people, so they calling for rebuilding the national home.

The slogan "A land without people for people without a land" is a false statement. The land was never "public land". During the time of the Ottoman Empire the land was held by wealthy Turkish families as fiefdoms. For centuries they had permitted Palestinian families to farm the same plots of land in exchange for part of the income. By the time the Palestinians realized they needed legal statements to ownership of the land the Ottoman Empire had collapsed, deeds were never issued and the English administered Palestinian Mandate wouldn't or couldn't issue deeds.

So you realize Palestinians arab never owned these lands. Good.

I already showed in other thread that over 70% of the land, public kand, was vested in the Mandatory Power, mostly in the Negev.
Also, at Peel Commission they addressed to Arab charge that Jews obtained large proportion of good land, they said – “Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased."

So Jews turned the swamps and sand dunes to a land which carrying orange groves, what a heinous crime…

Mentioning some affiliation in ones prayers is not a legal claim to land or anything else. The fact is that in 5,000 years of history Jews, except for a very fe years, have never ruled over Palestine. Having watched close up and very personally the land claims of the Penobscots in Maine, I know for certain that if an Indian tribe claimed sacred rights to your land you would be in court disputing the claim faster than you could say "L'Shana Haba'ah B'Yerushalayim".

Neither the US nor the Zionists have been honest about how they acquired land.

Never said it was. Actually I was referring to history and international law regarding the rights of the Jewish people in the land of Israel.

You mean except of couple of hundred years the Jews ruled over the land of Israel, right?

Also can you tell me when the Palestinians ruled over the land of Israel?

 

[NO1]

The truly powerful hold their position because of their intelligence, example, fairness, adherence to the law and respect of others.
Massacre and theft are just bullying.

Like Hebron massacre? Which led to the distruction of the Jewish population in Hebron at that time
Or maybe you referring to the war at 48' when the Arabs rejected the partiton plan and with six armies tried to destory Israel and kill the Jews, just couple of years after the Holocaust...

 

[NO1]

I am not opposed to the creation of a state for Jewish people, I am opposed to the ethnic cleansing of others to achieve it. It is noticeable that the main world players that support the state of Israel and thus it's racist policies against Arabs are themselves the result of settler colonial exploitation of an indigenous people

Well in other thread you said -

Judaism is a religion whereas Israel is a state, and a state that not all of those who practice Judaism think should even exist. It's hysterical to see how you lump all Jewish people into your preferred narrative even without their permission and against their beliefs.

Ethnic cleansing lol
Israel agreed to the partiton plan when the Arabs rejected it and tried to destroy Israel, 6 armies against the one day old Israel. Also at 1949 Israel offered to allow 100,000 refugees to return to Israel in exchange of peace treaty with the Arabs.

Just showing how ridiculous your arguments are.

 

[oneworld2]

Resolutions of the UNSC do not constitute the passing of international law by the UN, seeing how the UN has no authority of doing any such thing in the absence of agreement by all parties.

Since such overall agreement (IOW by everyone) constitutes the primary hurdle for establishing an international law that is binding for everyone, the concept remains abstract.

In related context of which the fact remains that the US does not have a 40 year record of voting against a two-state solution, seeing how it never did any such thing either.

No amount of frenzied flailing about by the poster in the futile attempt of cementing his fallacious arguments can change anything in that.

The accompanying ad-homs change nothing either, but serve to confirm once more the prudence of not directly engaging the poster in question.

Dazzling ignorance and willfully so seeing as examples have already been given of the UN taking action against states for transgressions of international law. You cannot show anything to ostriches due to their heads being buried in the sand. That level of self deception is extremely rare imo and is to be found in the completely and hopelessly entrenched, so I can't say I'm surprised by it. So to the nonsense being passed off as informed opinion in the above...............

The UN Charter itself is one of the treaties used for the application and adherence to international law. So to say there is an " absence of agreement by all parties " wrt member states belonging to the UN itself beggars belief for its complete and utter idiocy. The signing up to the UN Charter constituting the agreement. Should that ever need explaining ? Not in my view but you have to factor in just how ignorant some people are.

It was the UNSC that sanctioned other member states to rid Kuwait of Iraqi forces in 1991, fact. So yes, the UNSC can and has sanctioned actions against law breakers up to and including the use of military force as in the case cited. To seek to ignore the example and continue to deny that reality is incredibly stupid but it doesn't come as a surprise. When it comes to a choice of people keeping on digging themselves into ever bigger holes rather than concede a point you know exactly why that happens.

The UNGA , every year, votes on self determination for the Palestinian people in a state of their own based on the OPTs territories ( the two state solution ) and has done for around 40 odd years and every year the vote is around 150 for and 10 against, the USA and Israel being accompanied by whoever they can strong arm/coerce at any given moment. That above poster, despite me giving citations from Israeli newspapers confirming such, continues to cry foul ( or worse lies ) instead of acknowledging that it is their own ignorance of this well known situation that is the issue only follows the same pattern as the ridiculous comments they have made about the UNSC and international law.

No amount of evidence will ever change such closed minds and the grandiose notions of intellectual superiority they assume prevents them from ever acknowledging the error of their ways and commentary. It's just a bridge too far for that personality type.

People with more open minds can consider the UN Charter as a treaty to uphold international laws and those signatories, IE member states, agreeing to the terms of that contract ( which it is ) would fully understand the situation I have outlined. The closed minds can cry all they want but it is only their own ignorance that is on display.

People can reference the UNSC resolutions that gave the coalition the LEGAL recourse to oust SHs forces from Kuwait, it's not something that is difficult to research. Likewise , people can follow that up with the 2003 US led attack on Iraq , where the UNSC sanctioning of it was contested leading to charges of illegality in many circles. This too supports the argument of how the UN/UNSC is deemed to be the arbiter of legality in international affairs. Those that deny it are just ridiculously ignorant people trying to justify their long held but ignorant opinions/positions in the face of irrefutable evidence

 

[Chagos]

The fact remains that

Resolutions of the UNSC do not constitute the passing of international law by the UN, seeing how the UN has no authority of doing any such thing in the absence of agreement by all parties.

Since such overall agreement (IOW by everyone) constitutes the primary hurdle for establishing an international law that is binding for everyone, the concept remains abstract.

The fact remains standing that international law is not passed by the UN and UNSC resolutions are not the same thing.

And just for the sake of factuality, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the UNSC, seeing how the necessary resolution for that invasion was never obtained from the UNSC.

 

[oneworld2]

Well in other thread you said -


Ethnic cleansing lol
Israel agreed to the partiton plan when the Arabs rejected it and tried to destroy Israel, 6 armies against the one day old Israel. Also at 1949 Israel offered to allow 100,000 refugees to return to Israel in exchange of peace treaty with the Arabs.

Just showing how ridiculous your arguments are.

There is no contradiction in what you quoted of mine. Infact they are to do with two separate issues.

It was the USA that put pressure on Israeli negotiators to accept some Palestinian refugees, hardly a magnanamous jesture when you have to be pressured into it and then attach such strings so as to make it unacceptable anyhow. Obviously, it is your own arguments that are ridiculous.

 

[oneworld2]

The fact remains that

The fact remains standing that international law is not passed by the UN and UNSC resolutions are not the same thing.

And just for the sake of factuality, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the UNSC, seeing how the necessary resolution for that invasion was never obtained from the UNSC.

( quoting you own already debunked nonsense doesn't somehow , magically, morph into a higher orbit lols )

THe ignorance, contradictions and retractions by ommision are just pathetically obvious in the above. You evidently have no control over how contradictory and ridiculous you allow yourself and your postings here to get

You talk about a " necessary resolution " read a UN sanctioning of the use of force via it's security arm namely the UNSC ( the clue is in the name ) without understanding that you have already stated that the UN is not the arbiter of international law and that, apparently, nobody has signed up to being bound by its provisions lols

You need to explain to your imaginery fan club how the UN, via the UNSC, upheld the laws contained in the UN Charter in order to rid Kuwait of SHs forces. Was it magic ? Divine intervention ? No, it was the UN and some of it's member states that used international law to rid Kuwait from Iraqi forces in 1991. Thus your claims are bizarre and based on a glaring ignorance of that you are trying to lecture others on.

 

[oneworld2]

The UN Charter, in its Preamble, set an objective: "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained". Ever since, the development of, and respect for international law has been a key part of the work of the Organization.

This work is carried out in many ways - by courts, tribunals, multilateral treaties - and by the Security Council, which can approve peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions, or authorize the use of force when there is a threat to international peace and security, if it deems this necessary. These powers are given to it by the UN Charter, which is considered an international treaty. As such, it is an instrument of international law, and UN Member States are bound by it.

The UN Charter codifies the major principles of international relations, from sovereign equality of States to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.

Uphold International Law | United Nations

The principal judicial organ of the UN is the International Court of Justice. The development of, and respect for international law (an objective written into the Preamble to the UN Charter) has been a key part of the work of the United Nations since it was founded.

www.un.org

The bolded is what was used by the UN to rid Kuwait of Iraqi forces in 1991. Their claim that " international law is not passed by the UN and UNSC resolutions are not the same thing " apart from the complete ridiculous nature of the claim itself is no less deemed as being " fact ".

The same poster also asserts that countries haven't signed up to the international law provisions contained in the UN Charter ( which is an intrument of international law itself ) despite somehow being member states of the UN ( how you explain that one away I just haven't a clue ) has now, it seems, decided to retract it by omission.

Bizarre claims in bizarre posts, there is no other way to see it.

 

[Chagos]

Constant repetition of falsehoods does not change their nature and ignoring the factuality of the 2003 Iraq invasion not having been sanctioned by ANY UNSC resolution cannot serve to deflect from the invalidity of previously having stated the opposite.

Lies over what others have in fact claimed serve just as little.

International Law as an actually existing instrument can only be achieved by treaties that are either bi-lateral or multi-lateral (IOW with two or more countries as signatories) and having signed up to and for any UN Charter does not constitute that.

The failure of those activating the Iraq invasion of 2003 in obtaining the validating UNSC resolution shows that, since, if any international law actually existed, obtainment of any such resolution would be totally unnecessary.

 

[oneworld2]

Constant repetition of falsehoods does not change their nature and ignoring the factuality of the 2003 Iraq invasion not having been sanctioned by ANY UNSC resolution cannot serve to deflect from the invalidity of previously having stated the opposite.

Lies over what others have in fact claimed serve just as little.

International Law as an actually existing instrument can only be achieved by treaties that are either bi-lateral or multi-lateral (IOW with two or more countries as signatories) and having signed up to and for any UN Charter does not constitute that.

The failure of those activating the Iraq invasion of 2003 in obtaining the validating UNSC resolution shows that, since, if any international law actually existed, obtainment of any such resolution would be totally unnecessary.

The only repetion of falsehoods is coming from your commentary. The " criticisms" you chose to cite even state that to " accede" to them............quote................." Because the bulk of international law comes from treaties, which are binding only on the parties that ratify or accede to them" makes them treaties............... thus member states of the UN have agreed to be bound by the legal provisions within its Charter, same with Geneva 4. You agree to it, you are bound by it. These are voluntary decisions by the member states themselves, remember.

Thus when it is claimed that..." absence of agreement by all parties." it is obviously a bogus claim seeing as the " parties" have " agreed " by signing up to the Charter. So obvious to anyone without ridiculous agenda that is built on misrepresentations.

There is no " ignoring " of the 2003 attack on Iraq. I have already stated that many find it to be illegal precisely because there wasn't a UNSC resolution that expressly granted the right to force or set out the limitations of any action. It is exactly because there is this lack of UNSC endorsement that people deem the action to be illegal. This actually bolsters the point I make and you have tried, and failed, to invert that reality.

There is a genuine " ignoring" going on , however, and it is contained in your own posts regarding the 1991 attack on Iraq. You have steadfastly refused to address how the UNSC,and thus the UN, initiated the provisions with the UN Charter to use those laws to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

That war is deemed legal precisely because it has UN/UNSC/international law backing and the 2003 is deemed illegal because it didn't. There is no stronger example of how your commentary is an actual inversion of the truth and hence you refuse to respond to it with the added bonus of trying to project your own willingness to ignore the examples of Iraq onto others that haven't actually ignored them.

 

[NO1]

There is no contradiction in what you quoted of mine. Infact they are to do with two separate issues.

I think they are do relevant...

It was the USA that put pressure on Israeli negotiators to accept some Palestinian refugees, hardly a magnanamous jesture when you have to be pressured into it and then attach such strings so as to make it unacceptable anyhow. Obviously, it is your own arguments that are ridiculous.

The USA also pressured Israel to offer territorial compensation as well, so why Israel didn’t offer to give the land also?
There was a pressure from other parties as well, they want Israel to allow the return of much palestinian arabs. Israel made that offer and the Arabs rejected it, nothing new here...

And clearly you wrong, it’s just another part of your propaganda - accusing Israel in ethnic cleansing. You do know there were 150k arabs left in Israel after the war at 48’, and they became Israeli citizens? You do know there are about 2 million arabs citizens in Israel today? So much for ethnic cleansing. Pathetic.

Btw how many Jews left in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria?
Where are the offers for the 850,00 Jews which were expelled from arab countries?

Israel agreed to the partition plan while the arabs rejected it. 6 armies tried to destroy one day old Israel, one hell of an ethnic cleansing… Pathetic. You do know how absurd your arguments are, right?

So what we have so far – comparing the Jews to Nazis, transfer and now ethnic cleansing. You can cross off another item from your checklist.

 

[Chagos]

There's absolutely no point in continuing the discussion on the difference between the concept of international law and UN(SC) resolutions and/or UN membership.

One need only see the necessity of obtaining a sufficient number of yes votes to pass any resolution that would validate subsequent acting, something that in the case of any international law existing by way of treaties between two or more countries (the "subject" country of necessity also required to be a signatory) would not even be necessary.

When the entrenched misconceptions on that issue continue to be repeated in display of the abundant ignorance witnessed here, pointing out the fallacy of such "conceptions" are pretty similar to a maths pupil insisting on 2 + 2 being 5.

Only subsequent conclusion being to eventually flunk the pupil.

 

[oneworld2]

I think they are do relevant...


The USA also pressured Israel to offer territorial compensation as well, so why Israel didn’t offer to give the land also?
There was a pressure from other parties as well, they want Israel to allow the return of much palestinian arabs. Israel made that offer and the Arabs rejected it, nothing new here...

And clearly you wrong, it’s just another part of your propaganda - accusing Israel in ethnic cleansing. You do know there were 150k arabs left in Israel after the war at 48’, and they became Israeli citizens? You do know there are about 2 million arabs citizens in Israel today? So much for ethnic cleansing. Pathetic.

Btw how many Jews left in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria?
Where are the offers for the 850,00 Jews which were expelled from arab countries?

Israel agreed to the partition plan while the arabs rejected it. 6 armies tried to destroy one day old Israel, one hell of an ethnic cleansing… Pathetic. You do know how absurd your arguments are, right?

So what we have so far – comparing the Jews to Nazis, transfer and now ethnic cleansing. You can cross off another item from your checklist.

You think they are " relevant " but neglected to say how or why lol. Your posts are just littered with this type of pathetic accusation and made up on the rest with hyperbolic nonsense.

You claimed that Israel " offered" the return of some Arabs but neglected to include the facts that they were pressured into doing so and then tied the offer to other things that they knew would be next to impossible for the Arab side to accept. Propagandistic tricks your posts are littered with btw.

The Germans tried to rid Europe of Jews but there were still some left there after the war, does that negate the charge that the Germans did indeed ethnically cleanse Europe of Jews ? Of course not, so your point is just ridiculous. The Zionists planned and executed, exploiting the circumstances, to get as many Arabs out of Palestine as they could to assure Jewish numerical supremacy. Anyone familiar with pre war Zionist talk of " transfer " ( read forcible removal ) of Arabs from Mandate Palestine will know this already despite your none supported cries of foul play

The Arab moves to rid themselves of Jews ( with Israeli support that you don't want people to know about ) is as reprehensible as the Zionist moves to rid themselves of Arabs, is as reprehensible as the Nazis wishing to rid Europe of it's Jews ( also with Zionist help ) . That others have engaged in the same thing doesn't exonerate Israel or Zionists from the same criticisms. You appear to think it should lol


The comparisons are actually fair wrt the wishes of all of those mentioned above to rid territories of groups based on their ethnicity/religion. You appear to believe that only Arabs should be or are fair game to be presented as Nazi like. The facts don't support it.

 

[oneworld2]

There's absolutely no point in continuing the discussion on the difference between the concept of international law and UN(SC) resolutions and/or UN membership.

One need only see the necessity of obtaining a sufficient number of yes votes to pass any resolution that would validate subsequent acting, something that in the case of any international law existing by way of treaties between two or more countries (the "subject" country of necessity also required to be a signatory) would not even be necessary.

When the entrenched misconceptions on that issue continue to be repeated in display of the abundant ignorance witnessed here, pointing out the fallacy of such "conceptions" are pretty similar to a maths pupil insisting on 2 + 2 being 5.

Only subsequent conclusion being to eventually flunk the pupil.

You have painted yourself into a corner and are now using the old trick of trying to accuse someone elses, alleged, stupidity as accounting for your exit it's like one of the most used forms of retreat used on boards like these and is pathetic in it's unoriginality.

I have exposed the ignorance contained in your posts. The complete lack of knowledge of how and where international has been and can be used. Well, it's not actually a lack of knowledge , it's a denial of an obvious reality because of a petty vendetta that has seen your posts go more and more bizarre as each layer of the sophistry has been dispensed with. You have an ongoing and petty vendetta that you will deny exists but is wholly evidenced by the content of your posts.

You want out because I nailed you on Iraq and asked you to explain what happened in both 1991 and 2003 . How the UN/UNSC actions/decisions were critical in analysing the legality or not of actions taken. You think nobody will notice as you bow out of that challenge claiming a phoney reason is behind your retreat ? A reason that just so happens to throw mud at the very person who has rumbled your lack of actual knowledge and has assisted you into the corner you now reside in ?

BTW your contempt for international law is what's really shone through all along. IMO your posts display a complete lack of the bare minimum of morality required to even talk about such things, with the obvious resort to projection they're filled with confirming an absence of integrity to boot.

That you refer to yourself as the teacher here is only valuable at a comedic level so kudos for the laughs as a light relief from the ugliness of your actual commentary.

 

[Chagos]

There's absolutely no point in continuing the discussion on the difference between the concept of international law and UN(SC) resolutions and/or UN membership.