Attacker shot on scene, succumbs to wounds; Of the victims, four moderately wounded, one lightly so.12:38 27.11.15 | 1 comments
"West Bank is not occupied, but disputed territory" - Ayalon// Ayalon pretending to be ignorant on a number of counts while offering blatant lies as his arguments. 1. The ISRAELI SUPREME COURT iteself accepts (since the Elon Moreh case of 1979) that the West Bank is under belligerent occupation. Here is one quote of many possible: "Background 1. Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation." (Beit Sourik case, Judgement, written by President Aharon Barak, 2004)/ 2. Being "disputed" is not an alternative to being occupied. An area can be disputed but unoccupied, or disputed AND occupied. If one of the claimants to a territory moves its army and occupies a territory by force, it becomes occupied while being disputed. The two terms, disputed - occupied do not contradict each other and one does not cancel the other./ My question here is: Why make such obvious lies that don't convince anybody and can only put the liar in bad light? Isn't it just stupid? REAL stupid?