Reply #177: On the contrary

[Tripmann]

1. You have been singularly unable to prove your contention that Israel legally occupies the west bank. I have been able to demonstrate that they cannot.

2. You have revolved your argument around how 4 words of 242 can be interpreted. I have revolved mine around established principals and the preamble on which 242 sits.

3. You have refused to explain how the israeli settlements are considered illegal if the land is laffully held

4. You have refused to discuss why bibi would offer 60% of territory israel holds lagally to its mortal enemy.

5. You refuse to acknowledge the stupidity of claiming the occupation is a temporary measure if settlements have been built on the land contrary to the geneva convention, or the absurdity of claiming Israel can be actively working towards the 'secure borders' part in 242 while practicing expansionist policies.

As usual, all mouth no trousers.

Wheres your proof??