<<However, when the opposite is the case and they encroach deeper into the area designated for the Palestinian state then suddenly everything is an ambiguous gray area and the borders dont exist at all.>>

I don't thing being consistent or winning the argument is the point. The point is to keep arguing until the facts on the ground change irreversibly in Israel's favor.

<You can be sure that if the Palestinians tried to create an outpost on what Israel considered their border that it would be attacked and bulldozed.>

Depends. Perhaps not in the West Bank, due to the improved security and partnerships between the two sides.

<I don't thing being consistent or winning the argument is the point.>

Seems the point with you. You'll win even if you are really losing. Insisting that you are right seems to be more important than BEING right. For instance, Nolen - who broke the ceasefire in Gaza? Does 242 supersede 181?

<The point is to keep arguing until the facts on the ground change irreversibly in Israel's favor.>

For some, that's true. To the detriment of the Pals, who are playing into their hands. What idiots.

A little better than your last response, "possession is 9/10ths of the law" but even less insightful.

What part of this is confusing to you?

<Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent "secure and recognized" boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.>

I don't see the confusion. Where's the confusion? "...set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line,..." "a new frontier line". What - you think that he's talking about a TEMPORARY line and then go BACK to the 181 borders? Are you serious?

That's based upon THE SUBJECT of the PREVIOUS SENTENCE, which his "the 1967 line".

I honestly do not know at this point if you are being intentionally dishonest. This statement is clear as day. His DIRECT statement of A) "the 1967 line" and then B) IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, "...set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line,..."?

Where's your confusion?

<No, Andrew, it's due to the fact that we recognize research entails more than copying and pasting cherry picked quotes from the Israeli Foreign ministry website and being snarky>

Bullshit. First of all, this is no "cherry picked quotes". These are the relevant quotes to the context of the discussion, THREE of them from THREE people that WROTE 242. If you think that these "cherry picked quotes" are not appropriate, tell me why? To suggest that you simply believe that they are "cherry picked quotes" but not explain how this then poisons the well? If it does, then say HOW. Why will you not do this?

<No, he's pointing out that you are waiving around quotes while lacking any understanding of what is actually being discussed>

See, John - THIS is a good example of "irony". That this fella can say this nonsense while he obviously has no idea of what he's talking about even though he has the quotes RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM, obviously HIMSELF "lacking any understanding of what is actually being discussed"? THAT is ironic. I mean, he's got so much time and effort tied into not allowing this fact to be a fact. First for weeks with Erik and then with me. That said, I still do not know if he's being intentionally dishonest or really just...well, I don't know how to say that next line without being insulting, so I'll defer to simply saying that he has no idea perhaps what those words actually mean?

<<Ad hom>>

<Don't worry about it, this is standard fare.>

Along with your calling Jews "liars". Yeah. Standard fare, 'eh, Nolen?

<it'd be amusing to see him squirm out of the "inadmissibility" clause.>

I think so also. But, I could find no information on what this clause meant, but obviously YOU know, so perhaps you would let us know? But, you won't. And, none of the deluded people on 'your' side will either.

Why? Because it does not change anything. If it did, you'd have said so. I laughed when John kept pressing the issue. I mean, he does not know himself and if it meant something, you'd have said what it changed. But, instead, you'll be intentionally dishonest about it and pretend that this "inadmissibility clause" means something.

Wanna know what it means? You sad, sad ignant people, you. This clause CONFIRMS my point:

'The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security." Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;'

And, what does "from territories" mean, Geniuses?

"The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." - George Brown, British Foreign Secretary

".. paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." - Eugene V Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs

So, there are TWO people who CONFIRM that 181's borders are meaningless. Meaningless.

How can you POSSIBLY continue to assert that this means ANYTHING other than the BARE WORDS.

Oh, right. Nolen's typical poisoning of the well for information that he does not like.

Lord Caradon goes on to say, "Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong...We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line."

So, what - he's not qualified to make this judgment? And, Nolen? Check the source: www.camera.org/index.asp

Read it for yourself. He quite clearly stated that the armistice borders were irrelevant, and QUITE CLEARLY NEVER stated that the 181 borders were relevant.

None of the framers stated that 181 was relevant, but purpose and intent.

242 supersedes 181.

It's that easy. Not one of you have even TRIED to 'prove' your point. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You'll just say, "I don't want to bother, blah blah blah.." What is bullshit about this is that when you WANT and CAN prove your point, you TRY.

You've not even TRIED, and won't. Because you can't.

242 supersedes 181. The very FRAMERS agree with me, by word, deed and intent.

<<<No, YOUR cite stated "...to completion of around 2,500 new homes." These are homes that have already STARTED, John. The noun "expansion" means "the act or process of expanding." They've ALREADY expanded. It already happened. Moreso - this was land that they ALREADY had, they didn't take this land from anyone (recently).>>>

ANDREW, BIBI REFERS TO THIS AS SETTLEMENT EXPANSION!!!!

WHY WHY WHY do you think you can force your understanding of 'settlement expansion' on the world??

*slaps forehead in utter disbelief*

<Stop getting high, Elo. It's rotting your brain.

Not ONCE am I justifying or reasoning or rationalizing any expansion. Not at all. AND, I condemn it as wrong ALL THE TIME.

Seriously. Knock off the drugs. They make people stupid. >

well Andrew you can certainly tell when your losing an argument, because you either slip into personal abuse, or the "i dont give a shit" line.

Not that its any of your business but i wasnt stoned when i wrote any of that, it seems like your resorting to Fox news - Cliff style tactics, I tell you once that Im stoned, and then you rehash that over and over like Fox news would do, trying to win there argument with personal you attacks.

Knock of the Ad hominem personal attacks Andrew, and ill debate with you, but keep up the personal attacks and ill have to have a word with Ron.


and not only has John shown that 2,500 new homes are being built, but I ALREADY before showed you that Palestinians were being thrown out of apartment blocks in east Jerusalem to make way for Israeli families. When we talked about that before, it was you who seemed completely ignorant of the details, not me, asking me to suply them for you, so it actually seems like its you who doesn't know what your talking about.

I dont care if them 2,500 homes had been previously planed or started, does that mean that its not expansion ? How is a start date for planing or construction relevant to the definition "expansion" ? its expansion on Palastinian land - simple, in spite of your efforts to hide it.

You trying to act like they are irrelevant exactly reinforces my point, on the one hand, you say that you condemn settlements, then on the other, when 2,500 new homes are built, and Palestinians thrown out of apartments in Jerusalem to make way for Israeli families - and by the way one of the evicted Pals died, then you try to cover them up saying there not true expansion and you try and justify them.

Thats exactly what i was talking about.

Be honest. This is 2,500 more new homes on Palestinian territory, and people are being thrown out of there homes in Jerusalem - simple, that should not be happening. You trying to justify them will reinforce this conflict.

Its not relevant that that land may be given back in a peace deal. Because as you well know if more families are living in the occupied territories it makes a peace deal harder, because its harder to move them people out, and not only that it could be years before a deal is ever completed, and if Netanyahu is insincere about a deal, as these expansions suggest, then it might not happen for decades.

And you keep saying, in more ad hominem attacks that i don't know what im talking about, yet America and Europe clearly see these settlements as expansions also. Does Obama and his team of advisors, and the European leaders "not know what there talking about" either Andrew ?

Well keep trying to justify the unjustifiable Andrew, that's how conflicts get fuel, but don't be surprised when the violence breaks out again.

So long as Isreali supports dont condemn this kind of thing, and see it as hostile to peace, then there is unlikely to be a deal.

And I am also right that Isreal and America have encouraged disunity between Hamas and Fatah, ive read about it often, for a start, of course the two groups are pyhiscaly sepearted off from each other and locked into separate little bits of land.

If thats not going to encourage disunity i dont know what is, never mind the fact that Fatah have been allowed and encouraged to imprison and torture Hamas members in the West Bank.

No Andrew, its clearly you who doesn't know what he is talking about, or if you do anyway your giving a distorted version of reality.

No settlement expansions now - keep living in dream land Andrew, the whole world is onto this bullshit now, you and Netanyahu ain't fooling nobody.

So what will i get to that, most likely a "i dont give a shit". lol.