Hello Oleg,
I think that a posting, that I made in one of my echoes circa 30 BF>years
ago, is still applicable. From the Troll's Handbook: Five BF>ways to win every Fidonet argument.
The dispute between representatives of the occupation and liberation movements is doomed. In this context, the West is the occupier.
Is it?
UN Resolution 242, after the June 1967 [Yom Kippur] war, stressed
the "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war." The
resolution was adopted with reference to the territories Israel
occupied in 1967, including the Golan.
So what gives any other country the right to do the same as Israel?
By the way, Western mercenaries no longer hesitate to die in the uniform of
their countries, at least they used to dress up in Ukrainian. Looks so-so.
Despite Israel's de facto annexation of East Jerusalem, Palestinians
who live there were not granted Israeli citizenship. Since 1967, Israel
has revoked the status of 14,000+ Palestinians, according to Israeli
rights group T'salem.
What does that say about an occupying power that treats the people
who live in the area it invaded? Where do those people go, having no
home to go to or place to stay?
For Life,
Lee
--
They say `Yes, Trump'! / We say `No, Trump!'
--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin:
news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)