P01135809 goes after "Liberal Jews" on Jewish New Year

[Dill]

(09-26-2023, 08:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In modern day terms, the Arab nations FAFO'd.  This kind of thing will happen when you use proxies to attack your enemies without declaring war.  Also mobilizing your military and expecting the defender to sit on their thumbs is a poor strategy.  You're firmly on record as excusing any excesses by the Muslim majority nations in this conflict, so your biased opinion is noted and safely relegated to inconsequential.  
Odd that you continue to ignore the stated objective of eliminating Israel as a nation.  I'm sure that's just an innocent omission on your part.

Sounds like you are, obliquely, admitting that Israel did strike first (but that was ok!!),
without denying the consistency of the UN condemnation with international law,
though you nevertheless dismiss the factual record I reported as inconsequential "biased opinion,"
because I am supposedly "on record" somewhere "as excusing any excesses by Muslim majority nations."

Perhaps the claim then is that these points cannot therefore be "consequential" or even factual:
1) that international law forbids annexing land taken in war,
2) that Israel annexed land taken in war, and 
3) that the UN condemned Israel for just that, naming it an "aggressor."

You aren't calling the reported legal application a "flat out lie" anymore. Maybe it never was?   

Odd that the UN condemnation omitted any "stated objective of eliminating Israel as a nation" as well.
Surely an "innocent omission" on their part, because recognizing that would surely have changed  . . . what?

My guess is--nothing concerning the application of international law.