The Jew Hating white lib LEFT ban Pro Israel speakers at Berkeley - Jew free zones

[moon]

' Positions ' make good padding for internet forums- but the plain, cold, hard truth of the matter is that 242 is very short and very clear.

1)The occupation is illegal. Irrefutable.
2)The Jews must withdraw from occupied Palestine. Irrefutable.

Now, you can continue to say ' Nah, nah- nah, nah, nah- international law sux ' , that's your ' right ' - but you are pushing ripe horseshit uphill on a hot day.


Your regurgitation of the crusty ' definite article ' canard is beneath contempt.

As the refutation of the Zionists' wriggling in 1967 went- ' Dogs are not allowed in ponds in the park ' has only one meaning. ' Jews must withdraw from occupied Palestine ' has only one meaning. No definite article is necessary- and besides the semantic connotations of its absence in English are laughable, so laughable that the 'argument ' was dubbed ' antisemantic ' in 1967.

Besides, the attempt at argument is moot. 242 states from the outset that it is based upon the - irrefutable - law that occupation is illegal. Of COURSE the Jews were obliged to withdraw. It's against the law. It still is today. Your only hope is to try to get rid of the UN- but there aren't enough Trumps to even make a start- and the one that tried looks like he's headed for the joint.

 

[Bigdog]

' Positions ' make good padding for internet forums- but the plain, cold, hard truth of the matter is that 242 is very short and very clear.

1)The occupation is illegal. Irrefutable.
2)The Jews must withdraw from occupied Palestine. Irrefutable.

Now, you can continue to say ' Nah, nah- nah, nah, nah- international law sux ' , that's your ' right ' - but you are pushing ripe horseshit uphill on a hot day.


Your regurgitation of the crusty ' definite article ' canard is beneath contempt.

As the refutation of the Zionists' wriggling in 1967 went- ' Dogs are not allowed in ponds in the park ' has only one meaning. ' Jews must withdraw from occupied Palestine ' has only one meaning. No definite article is necessary- and besides the semantic connotations of its absence in English are laughable, so laughable that the 'argument ' was dubbed ' antisemantic ' in 1967.

Besides, the attempt at argument is moot. 242 states from the outset that it is based upon the - irrefutable - law that occupation is illegal. Of COURSE the Jews were obliged to withdraw. It's against the law. It still is today. Your only hope is to try to get rid of the UN- but there aren't enough Trumps to even make a start- and the one that tried looks like he's headed for the joint.

Angry dementia Joe 2.0

Show me where 242 demands Israel adhere to 181's, null and void, partition recommendations.

181 was never legal binding. As in any arbitration, to be valid, it requires both or all parties agree, ... not just one side.

And Israel never voted on 181 in 1947.

And UNGA does not have the legal authority to grant statehood to Palestine, as you falsely claimed.

 

[moon]

Angry dementia Joe 2.0

Show me where 242 demands Israel adhere to 181's, null and void, partition recommendations.

242 didn't need to mention the agreed partitions again. It states that the Jews must withdraw ' from territories occupied in the recent conflict '

181 was never legal binding. As in any arbitration, to be valid, it requires both or all parties agree, ... not just one side.

I haven't claimed that it was binding. That's just one of your force-fed red herrings. What I said was that the partition was agreed and PASSED by the UN. The ' binding ' aspects are the states obligations to the UN Charter Article 2 ( mentioned in 242 ) and irrefutable international law that territory can never be gained by force. How many more times must I repeat this for you to understand it ?

And Israel never voted on 181 in 1947.

Of course not- there wasn't any ' Israel '. However, the Zionists did not object to it- not that it would have mattered if they had. The sitting states passed the Resolution. Palestine was divided- unfairly in my opinion- and so created a homeland for Jews and a homeland for Arabs.

And UNGA does not have the legal authority to grant statehood to Palestine, as you falsely claimed.

I've made no such claim. The Palestinian state was recognized by way of its upgraded status by the UN - which already held in trust its original status as a discreet territory as designated by UNGAR 181- which also gave the Zionists a discreet territory under law as provided by the British abrogation of its Mandate for Palestine to the United Nations.

You're going to have to quit inventing things for me to have said.

Palestinians win de facto U.N. recognition of sovereign state


UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue “birth certificate.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121201

OK ? Palestine is a recognized sovereign state. It is illegally occupied . The Zionists are required- by law- to fuck off.

 

[Bigdog]

=moon;5322999]242 didn't need to mention the agreed partitions again. It states that the Jews must withdraw ' from territories occupied in the recent conflict '

Yep, the 1967 war, ... not the 1948 war.

I haven't claimed that it was binding. That's just one of your force-fed red herrings. What I said was that the partition was agreed and PASSED by the UN. The ' binding ' aspects are the states obligations to the UN Charter Article 2 ( mentioned in 242 ) and irrefutable international law that territory can never be gained by force. How many more times must I repeat this for you to understand it ?

I have already given you proof that it is non binding. PASSED means nothing if all parties don't agree. And you have yet to provide proof that the UNGAR can grant statehood.

Of course not- there wasn't any ' Israel '. However, the Zionists did not object to it- not that it would have mattered if they had. The sitting states passed the Resolution. Palestine was divided- unfairly in my opinion- and so created a homeland for Jews and a homeland for Arabs.

PASSING the UNBAR res means nothing. It is a recommendation.

I've made no such claim. The Palestinian state was recognized by way of its upgraded status by the UN - which already held in trust its original status as a discreet territory as designated by UNGAR 181- which also gave the Zionists a discreet territory under law as provided by the British abrogation of its Mandate for Palestine to the United Nations.

You're going to have to quit inventing things for me to have said.

An UNGAR res can't do anything. It is a recommendation.

OK ? Palestine is a recognized sovereign state. It is illegally occupied . The Zionists are required- by law- to fuck off.

From your own link ...

"A number of Western delegations noted that Thursday’s vote should not be interpreted as formal legal recognition of a Palestinian state. Formal recognition of statehood is something that is done bilaterally, not by the United Nations."


Which is why you have absolutely failed to provide any proof that the UN charter gives legal authority to the UNGA to grant Statehood.

 

[moon]

Yep, the 1967 war, ... not the 1948 war.

That's right. Of course, the laws that forbid Israel from extending beyond the 1967 borders also apply to the 1948 borders.

I have already given you proof that it is non binding. PASSED means nothing if all parties don't agree.

You're simply in a revolving door. 181 was passed by democratic majority. You don't like it ? Go comp[lain already.

And you have yet to provide proof that the UNGAR can grant statehood.

No, I don't- because it can't- as I've repeated several times now.

PASSING the UNBAR res means nothing. It is a recommendation.

Only Chapter Seven Resolutions are binding. However, so is customary and accepted international law.

An UNGAR res can't do anything. It is a recommendation.

They are recommendations WITH PURPOSE. Or they wouldn't exist, would they.
Only Chapter Seven Resolutions are binding. However, so is customary and accepted international law.

From your own link ...

"A number of Western delegations noted that Thursday’s vote should not be interpreted as formal legal recognition of a Palestinian state. Formal recognition of statehood is something that is done bilaterally, not by the United Nations."

Your ' number of Western delegations ' are pissing into the wind. The UN can grant levels of statehood according to democratic majority voting. Full statehood comes with no SC veto. However, should a SC veto be considered a ' threat to world peace ' then a veto may be over-ruled by the General Assembly.

Which is why you have absolutely failed to provide any proof that the UN charter gives legal authority to the UNGA to grant Statehood.

No, your education is proceeding, albeit slowly.

 

[Bigdog]

That's right. Of course, the laws that forbid Israel from extending beyond the 1967 borders also apply to the 1948 borders.

Yet, you quoted res 242 saying "recently occupied". Why are you contradicting yourself?

You're simply in a revolving door. 181 was passed by democratic majority. You don't like it ? Go comp[lain already.

Voted by political appointees! ... not elected representatives. A recommendation was passed. That is all. All you do is moan, Moon.

No, I don't- because it can't- as I've repeated several times now.

Yet, you keep contradicting yourself claiming the UNGA granted statehood to the last fragments of the Palestine Mandate.

Only Chapter Seven Resolutions are binding. However, so is customary and accepted international law.

And 181 is NOT a chap 7 res..

They are recommendations WITH PURPOSE. Or they wouldn't exist, would they.
Only Chapter Seven Resolutions are binding. However, so is customary and accepted international law.

With purpose? ... that doesn't make it legally binding.

Your ' number of Western delegations ' are pissing into the wind. The UN can grant levels of statehood according to democratic majority voting. Full statehood comes with no SC veto. However, should a SC veto be considered a ' threat to world peace ' then a veto may be over-ruled by the General Assembly.

You mean levels of pre-statehood.

Full statehood comes with no SC veto.

You gat a quote to support that.

No, your education is proceeding, albeit slowly.

Very funny

 

[moon]

Yet, you quoted res 242 saying "recently occupied". Why are you contradicting yourself?

That's not a contradiction- you're being silly.

Voted by political appointees! ... not elected representatives. A recommendation was passed. That is all. All you do is moan, Moon.

The recommendation was accepted by the Jews. If you want to change it best start building your time-machine straight away. Take some sandwiches.

Yet, you keep contradicting yourself claiming the UNGA granted statehood to the last fragments of the Palestine Mandate.

No, I don't. You just pretend that I do because you've failed in your attempt to elevate Zionism above international law. You people never learn. Over seventy years now and legal Israel is no bigger than it was in 1947.

Israel cannot obtain legal title to any territory by conquest. Thus Israel's borders were legally established by the United Nations Partition Resolution of 1947, which ended Great Britain's power as a trustee on condition that an Arab State and a Jewish State would be established with borders as demarkated in the text of the resolution. Those borders remain the legal boundary of the State of Israel.

And 181 is NOT a chap 7 res..

Yes, that's what I told you. You've got something right.

With purpose? ... that doesn't make it legally binding.

Again - ( aqain, again, again )- both 181 and 242 are backed by binding international law. Territory can never be gained by force . Both, purposeful, Resolutions are backed by irrefutable and binding law-

..the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181.

You mean levels of pre-statehood.

No, Observer statehood is recognition of statehood. It was gained by democratic majority in the world's foremost legal body. Full UN membership follows as a matter of course. 138 countries already back full statehood for Palestine. Accept it. There will NEVER be a ' Greater Israel '

Now tell me- what do you think of your nice Zionist Jews poisoning the water wells of Palestine ?

Disclosed; Jews sent to poison the wells of Arab villages.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ews-sent-to-poison-the-wells-of-Arab-villages

Do you really think that these degenerate assholes are worth making yourself look silly over ?
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...-in-1948/00000183-d2b2-d8cc-afc7-fefed64d0000

 

[Lionfish]

That's not a contradiction- you're being silly.





The recommendation was accepted by the Jews. If you want to change it best start building your time-machine straight away. Take some sandwiches.



No, I don't. You just pretend that I do because you've failed in your attempt to elevate Zionism above international law. You people never learn. Over seventy years now and legal Israel is no bigger than it was in 1947.





Yes, that's what I told you. You've got something right.




Again - ( aqain, again, again )- both 181 and 242 are backed by binding international law. Territory can never be gained by force . Both, purposeful, Resolutions are backed by irrefutable and binding law-




No, Observer statehood is recognition of statehood. It was gained by democratic majority in the world's foremost legal body. Full UN membership follows as a matter of course. 138 countries already back full statehood for Palestine. Accept it. There will NEVER be a ' Greater Israel '

Now tell me- what do you think of your nice Zionist Jews poisoning the water wells of Palestine ?

Disclosed; Jews sent to poison the wells of Arab villages.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ews-sent-to-poison-the-wells-of-Arab-villages

Do you really think that these degenerate assholes are worth making yourself look silly over ?

Doos damn Jews, it's the Jews

 

[moon]

2) LyingFish

Doos damn Jews

Zionists, you Jew-hating s.o.b.

Disclosed; Jews sent to poison the wells of Arab villages.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...-in-1948/00000183-d2b2-d8cc-afc7-fefed64d0000

 

[Bigdog]

That's not a contradiction- you're being silly.





The recommendation was accepted by the Jews. If you want to change it best start building your time-machine straight away. Take some sandwiches.



No, I don't. You just pretend that I do because you've failed in your attempt to elevate Zionism above international law. You people never learn. Over seventy years now and legal Israel is no bigger than it was in 1947.





Yes, that's what I told you. You've got something right.




Again - ( aqain, again, again )- both 181 and 242 are backed by binding international law. Territory can never be gained by force . Both, purposeful, Resolutions are backed by irrefutable and binding law-




No, Observer statehood is recognition of statehood. It was gained by democratic majority in the world's foremost legal body. Full UN membership follows as a matter of course. 138 countries already back full statehood for Palestine. Accept it. There will NEVER be a ' Greater Israel '

Now tell me- what do you think of your nice Zionist Jews poisoning the water wells of Palestine ?

Disclosed; Jews sent to poison the wells of Arab villages.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ews-sent-to-poison-the-wells-of-Arab-villages

Do you really think that these degenerate assholes are worth making yourself look silly over ?
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...-in-1948/00000183-d2b2-d8cc-afc7-fefed64d0000

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. And once again, you have failed to provide source links for your quotes because you know you are wrong.

Your KB post is the opinion of a white lib nazi professor, not a ruling.

 

[Althea]

Any reliable news source? The Post is Murdoch.

There was a time when the N.Y. Post was a respected publication.

Now it's a tabloid that inbreds seem to use as their only source.

 

[Bigdog]

There was a time when the N.Y. Post was a respected publication.

Now it's a tabloid that inbreds seem to use as their only source.

The whole leftwing media lied about the laptop.

BTW nazi, the Jewish Journal broke the Berkeley story. Lazy fuck lib.
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/351854/berkeley-develops-jewish-free-zones/

 

[Althea]

The whole leftwing media lied about the laptop.

BTW nazi, the Jewish Journal broke the Berkeley story. Lazy fuck lib.
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/351854/berkeley-develops-jewish-free-zones/

Why did you cite the Post?

 

[Bigdog]

Why did you cite the Post?

Because white lib nazis would not believe the Jewish Journal.

 

[moon]

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. And once again, you have failed to provide source links for your quotes because you know you are wrong.

What quotes are you referring to ? Nothing I've posted is obscure.

Your KB post is the opinion of a white lib nazi professor, not a ruling.

D'Amato is referencing the Kellog-Briand Peace Pact and the judgements of the Nuremberg Trials , not writing them.


Haw, haw.........................................haw.

And yes, they outlaw invasion and annexation. Too bad for ' Greater Israel' , eh ?

If you want to deny that international law does not accept invasion and annexation by force go right ahead. There are many criminals that disagree with the law- Neo-Zionists included.
It won't do you- or them - any good though. The world supports international law.

 

[Bigdog]

What quotes are you referring to ? Nothing I've posted is obscure.



D'Amato is referencing the Kellog-Briand Peace Pact and the judgements of the Nuremberg Trials , not writing them.


Haw, haw.........................................haw.

And yes, they outlaw invasion and annexation. Too bad for ' Greater Israel' , eh ?

If you want to deny that international law does not accept invasion and annexation by force go right ahead. There are many criminals that disagree with the law- Neo-Zionists included.
It won't do you- or them - any good though. The world supports international law.

Then why are you afraid to post source links like a normal person?

I disagree with the white lib nazi's claim that 181's partition recommendations are international borders.

 

[Bigdog]

Why did you cite the Post?

NONE of the plethora of Democrat party media's white supremacists stories were true.

Chauvin not guilty of racism/hate crime.
The Rittenhouse child
The Covington child
Jussie Smollet
Pres. Trump
Hands up don't shoot
Freddie Gray
Zimmerman
Cambridge police (racist Obama's beer summit fiasco)


All fake racism stories.

 

[tigerred59]

"UC Berkeley blasted for creating 'Jewish-free zones' with ...https://nypost.com › 2022/09/30 › uc-berkeley-blasted-...
berkley pro israel from nypost.com
15 hours ago — UC Berkeley was slammed for creating “Jewish-free zones” after student groups adopted a rule banning pro-Israel speakers at events."


https://nypost.com/2022/09/30/uc-be...ewish-free-zones-with-pro-israel-speaker-ban/

'Two-bit goon' Trump ignites furious backlash for demanding U.S. Jews act more like Evangelicals
Raw Story - Yesterday 2:01 PM

Trump attacks American Jews, says they must 'get their act together' on Israel 'before it's too late'


POLITICS
Trump critical of "U.S. Jews" in social media post

American Jews ‘don’t like’ Israel, Trump charges

 

[Bigdog]

'Two-bit goon' Trump ignites furious backlash for demanding U.S. Jews act more like Evangelicals
Raw Story - Yesterday 2:01 PM

Trump attacks American Jews, says they must 'get their act together' on Israel 'before it's too late'


POLITICS
Trump critical of "U.S. Jews" in social media post

American Jews ‘don’t like’ Israel, Trump charges[/SIZE][/FONT]

You White Libs went hysterical and burst blood vessels when Pres. Trump ...

Recognized Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel and moved U.S. embassy HQ there.

Recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel.

Wrote the EO to prevent White Lib anti semitism on federally funded college campuses.

Killed the Jew killing terrorist, Solemani.

Demolished ISIS and Killed the Jew killing ISIS leaders

And got the Abraham Accords peace agreement done.

 

[LurchAddams]

Horseshit- there would be no Palestine at all without Arafat- and his spirit lives on- despite his assassination by Israeli fascists.
Iran is another country fucked over by British imperialists. No wonder you're sweating, maggot.
There will be a reckoning.


Haw, haw.............................haw.

Arafat died from AIDS-related illness. Too many secret trips to see Egyptian male hookers.


MANSERVANT! Haw haw haw