Simplicity

I'm not here to help you with your mental disorder.

@soundreece @Henry4586226151 @Jsp_Nic Reality has a zionist bent, sorry that hurts you.

@Simplicity @Henry4586226151 @Jsp_Nic This is so typically Zioinst. “We didn’t start the war, we just bombed them first”. 🤪

No one can ever actually explain why if Israel is an “expansionist colonial endeavor” to establish “Greater Israel,” it has not actually expanded in size, and, in fact, gave back land in 1982.

@soundreece @Henry4586226151 @Jsp_Nic points 1, 2, 3 are responses to aggression. even so, point 3, IL immediately tried to return the land in exchange for peace. Your Greater Israel is a lie you tell to comfort yourself.

Israel's expansionist history is rooted in the concept of "Eretz Israel," or Greater Israel, which envisions a Jewish state encompassing territories beyond its 1967 borders—areas that include the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and parts of Lebanon. This vision has guided Israeli policy since its founding in 1948. 1. 1948-1949: During the Arab-Israeli War, Israel expanded beyond the UN-proposed borders to capture additional territory from Palestinian Arabs and neighboring states. The war resulted in the displacement of approximately 700,000 Palestinians (known as Al-Nakba or "The Catastrophe" to Palestinians), creating a refugee crisis that persists today. 2. 1956 Suez Crisis: Israel invaded Egypt alongside Britain and France to control the Suez Canal. Although forced by international pressure to withdraw its troops from Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip temporarily, this marked an early attempt at territorial expansion through military means. 3. 1967 Six-Day War: In June 1967, Israel preemptively attacked Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The conflict led to Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem (annexed immediately), West Bank (from Jordan), Gaza Strip (from Egypt), and Golan Heights (from Syria). These territories remain disputed to this day. 4. 1982: Return of Sinai Peninsula - Why It Happened: The return was part of the Camp David Accords signed in September 1978 between Israel and Egypt under U.S. mediation by President Jimmy Carter. - Key Terms: Israel agreed to withdraw its forces from Sinai within three years in exchange for Egyptian recognition of Israel's sovereignty. - Strategic Consideration: By giving up Sinai (a strategic buffer zone against potential Egyptian aggression) for peace with Egypt—the most powerful Arab state—Israel secured a significant diplomatic victory while maintaining control over more densely populated areas like West Bank. 5. Post-1982 Expansionism: - Despite returning land under Camp David Accords, subsequent Israeli governments continued expanding settlements in occupied territories. - Construction accelerated under Prime Ministers like Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu through policies such as settlement expansion near Jerusalem ("Greater Jerusalem") and along strategic corridors ("security buffers"). - Annexation efforts intensified post-Trump presidency with plans formalized for annexing parts of West Bank before being halted due to international backlash. In summary, while rare instances like the return of Sinai demonstrate flexibility when aligned with broader security interests or diplomatic gains, overall Israeli policy has trended toward maintaining or expanding territorial control whenever possible—often justified as necessary for national security against threats from surrounding populations viewed as hostile or unreliable partners for peace.

@PepeDogood @EylonALevy @instapundit @AlexCrawfordSky And directly killed hundreds of Americans.

@EylonALevy @instapundit @AlexCrawfordSky Did Hezbollah ever blow up a girls school full of little girls? lolol muh terrorists so I can be a terrorist

According to @AlexCrawfordSky, the guy on the Hezbollah bike in uniform is a journalist and Definitely Not Hezbollah

@DelargeExtra @visegrad24 @drpezeshkian It's a violation of UN 2(4)

@visegrad24 @drpezeshkian People saying words isn't a war crime, even by your normal Zionist shilling standards this is silly.

Does threatening to send an entire nation back to the Stone Age mean anything other than a massive war crime? This was the question I asked my Finnish counterpart, who is a jurist. History is full of those who paid a heavy price for their silence in the face of criminals.

@Xander1996x @Claire_V0ltaire

@Simplicity @Claire_V0ltaire In that case they're still not fighting with allies.. They're just doing their job..

“It’s not fair Jews have defensive technology”. “It’s not fair Jews have better ambulances services”. “It’s not fair Jews refuse to die in direct proportion to their enemies.” Do you even hear yourself?

@Xander1996x @Claire_V0ltaire There are Jews in the US armed services.

@Claire_V0ltaire How about - “Jews refuse to FIGHT ON ON THE GROUND with their ALLIES.” It's been noted..

The most iconic spaceships in cinema🛸. I'll start.

Remember when an Israeli rapper truth bombed this👇Hamas supporter. Ah, good times. 😊

@LeftYooper @JonahPlatt Uh huh

@JonahPlatt It's werid how the only people that question if Ms. Rachel loves "ALL children" are Zionists pieces of shit. Go talk to a therapist instead of being pathetic online.

No one is saying caring about Palestinian children is the problem. The problem is claiming to care about ALL children while your own public record tells a different story. 234 mentions of Gaza since October 7th on Ms. Rachel's account. Near silence on Israeli kids. Then gaslight anyone who points it out. You don't get to call yourself a universal advocate and then pick and choose which children count.

@m4xim1l1an “Sir when did you stop beating your wife?” Your claim is the same. A presupposition fallacy. I’ve been challenging you on that. Dismissing, pending your actual argument which is apparently coming….

@m4xim1l1an A claim without evidence can hardly be considered a claim. As pointed out. Still waiting for that. Tick tock Clarice.

This is our post October 7th doctrine: we’re not evacuating our citizens anymore. We’re evacuating your citizens (if attacks come getting your territory).

@m4xim1l1an Still waiting for it.

@Simplicity Conditions again? There will be no goalpost moving, but it will be comprehensive. Again, I will tie it with my initial post, a reminder.

@m4xim1l1an Then you read the part where your claim, such as it was, lacked any evidence, which is why we’re here now.

@Simplicity I’ve read the grok analysis and it has confirmed you never refuted the claim of intl law violations. Grok established this a couple of times.

@m4xim1l1an Fine but let’s take it one at a time, without shifting goalposts. Your first was art 2(4). And go :)

@Simplicity My future post will focus on this and why its/there are intl law violation and violations and issues with Art 51. So yes, I will be tying it all together with my initial post and claim.

@m4xim1l1an Obviously you can enter evidence to support your claim, you should not make a *new* claim until we close this one out.

@m4xim1l1an you can challenge my 51 of course, in the context of art 2(4). Remember I put 51 first and you answered with 2, explain how or retract 2 and move to a different attack.

@m4xim1l1an If not, explain where IL violated “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

@m4xim1l1an Do you wish to retract 2(4) in favor of a different argument?

@m4xim1l1an Fair. For now, I must insist that we limit our discussion specifically to Article 2(4). Expand beyond that, without us first settling this, could be seen as bad faith and goalpost shifting - that's not to say we cannot discuss other things, but one at a time. thanks.

@Simplicity I will get back this later!