The New York Times makes another stab today at telling the truth about the legality of Jewish-only "settlements" in the West Bank, and fails again:
The settlements, which most countries consider illegal, . .
"Most countries?" Ethan Bronner is insinuating that there is a minority group of countries that do accept the Israeli colonies. Which are they? Most of us thought Israel was the only one, that even the United States regards them as a violation of international law.
Is the new definition of "most" "everyone but Israel?"
I’m imagining Ethan Bronner [whose car bears a 'My son serves in the IDF' bumper sticker] writing about visiting a headhunter tribe.
‘Cannibalism, which most countries consider illegal, has thousands of adherents here, who say their traditional fare of “long pig” is legally protected and “finger-lickin’ good”.’
Ethan Bronner and the New York Slimes: defining deviancy downward. Or as their slogan goes, All the news that’s fit to slant.
“Most” is accurate.
Everyone chooses their wording. You do read your own posts?
Rather than object to the preliminary terms of advantage, they should get down to constructing an actual viable consentable proposal.
That applies to Israel primarily, but also to the Palestinians.
>> Rather than object to the preliminary terms of advantage, they should get down to constructing an actual viable consentable proposal.
>> That applies to Israel primarily, but also to the Palestinians.
And Israel – which claims the status of “only democracy in the Middle East” – must lead the way by halting all aggression, oppression, colonialism, expansion, theft and murder. It has the power to do so IMMEDIATELY, COMPLETELY AND FOREVER.
That course of action is just and moral. To gloss over it is “humanist”.
Witty again . Illegal means illegal. You think it is ok to steal land, water; deny rights, kill with impunity. Israel and the US think it is ok if they do this, but it is ILLEGAL in international law, and even US law.
Israel and the US think it is ok if they do this, but it is ILLEGAL in international law, and even US law.
RW is a “humanist” and, according to him, it’s okay to steal and kill as long as, at some point, you promise not to do it again. Then the slate is wiped clean and veryone simply moves forward with their lives. The criminal is rewarded, the victim is wronged and he calls it “justice”.
The man is a walking fraud. But at least he does acknowledge that ethnic cleansing is “currently not necessary”.
“Most” is accurate.
Everyone chooses their wording. You do read your own posts?”
That’s amazing. The second I read that line from Bronner, I thought to myself, that’s exactly the sort of shot Witty would say.
“Most” is accurate.
It is deceptive framing.
Everyone chooses their wording
And no one more so than journalists.
The NYT, and specifically the Zionist Bronner, knows exactly what he is conveying with his statement.
The problem with the statement is clear: the legality of the settlements is not a subjective or political position, as the Bronner framing implies. The settlements are illegal not because “most” countries deem them as such, but international law and UN resolutions have determined them to be so. What the position of political bodies or states in regards to the settlement legality is at worst irrelevant, and at best secondary to the settlements’ objective definition as a violation of law and Palestinian rights.
Don’t you just love those eqivocating (to say the least) words?
“most” should be changed to “nearly all” countries consider the settlements illegal–less than a handful of very weak countries are on record as not concluding illegality and Australia and the US have spoken out of both sides of their mouths in the matter:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Amen, Jim.
Of course, what most people consider, or what most countries consider, has nothing to do with what really is. At one time most considered the earth to be flat. If pi was considered, officially, to be 3, would it be true?
And since there is no agreed on court to decide the issue, it’s hard to tell.
The only sovereignty covering the West Bank is that granted by the League of Nations to the Jewish People. The Arabs got Syria and Iraq, the Jews got Palestine. You may not like it, but it’s the only black-letter international law on the subject. Study the “San Remo Conference of 1920″ and the “Palestine Mandate” to get a handle on it.
If the other nations of the world believed that the border between Peru and Bolivia was in the wrong place, should the border be moved to match, or is it none of their business?
Areaman popping in once again to remind us that Palestinians have no rights that Israelis are required to recognize.
Areaman popping in once again to remind us that Palestinians have no rights that Israelis are required to recognize.
Which is why it is most convenient to deny that there is anything such as a Palestine, or Palestinians, in the first place.
First you lie by claiming that it is vague and hasn’t been decided on by the international community and then ….
….you suddenly recognize the validity of certain League of Nations agreements because they suit your agenda.
1. You can’t pick and choose which international law and treaties apply and which do not. It doesn’t work that way.
2. You go from peddling the old Hasbara tactic alleging that Oh, It’s really complicated to claiming that Oh, it’s really simple. Funny.
3. I find it hilarious that Zionist drones have latched on to this San Remo business in recent weeks. Did you guy attend the same Hasbara workshop? Is this the latest Hasbara spin conjured by Israel’s best and brightest? Pathetic.
4. Teh Ay-rabs didn’t have to get Syria, Lebanon, or any other place. They were already there and it was already theirs. Palestine belonged to Palestinians, long before your parents gave birth to you in Brooklyn.
Thanks Avi. The US, as well as supporting Israel and trying to destroy Iran for Israel’s ludicrous fears, also has made millions of Iraqi refugees, now taken in by Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, as well as absorbing the Palestinians already pushed out by Israel.
>> I find it hilarious that Zionist drones have latched on to this San Remo business in recent weeks.
Yeah, I’m still waiting for maxNarr to provide a link to a single international law which states, unambiguously, that “the Jewish people are the legal sovereign over the entire Mandate Palestine” (direct quote).
link to mondoweiss.net
AreaMan, would you please quit claiming pi = 3 and the world is flat?
Thank you Areaman,
Would you kindly explain where it says anything about the sovereignty of the West Bank being granted to the Jewish people?
link to en.wikipedia.org
Text of the Resolution
San Remo Resolution – April 25, 1920
It was agreed –
(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
La Puissance mandataire s’engage a nommer dans le plus bref delai une Commission speciale pour etudier toute question et toute reclamation concernant les differentes communautes religieuses et en etablir le reglement. Il sera tenu compte dans la composition de cette Commission des interets religieux en jeu. Le President de la Commission sera nomme par le Conseil de la Societe des Nations.
The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sèvres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
(c) Les mandataires choisis par les principales Puissances allies sont: la France pour la Syrie, et la Grande Bretagne pour la Mesopotamie, et la Palestine.
In reference to the above decision the Supreme Council took note of the following reservation of the Italian Delegation:
La Delegation Italienne en consideration des grands interets economiques que l’Italie en tant que puissance exclusivement mediterraneenne possede en Asie Mineure, reserve son approbation a la presente resolution, jusqu’au reglement des interets italiens en Turquie d’Asie.
Go find Narr and you two can sing a duet.
The hasbara bot is now calling himself Areaman; a few weeks ago on this blog he made the same erroneous argument. Again, The San Remo Conference he repeatedly refers to merely echoed the 1917 Balfour Declaration letter to Rothschild; the English spokesman promising “a homeland” within the Palestine Mandate on condition the rights of the natives not be infringed. No Israeli sovereign state was ever promised, and the state the jews set up themselves deprived, and still does, the natives of their rights. Impliedly, Balfour intended an eventual state of Palestine containing both native and jewish citizens with equal rights therein. Furthermore, the Mandate trust authority did not extend to a unilateral gift of a state to the jews from the administered land.
AreaMan
“Study the “San Remo Conference of 1920″ and the “Palestine Mandate” to get a handle on it.”
The documents do not support your silly theory. [ link to wp.me ]
Furthermore, the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, FIRST LINE…ever tried reading it?
“On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired…”
EXPIRED!
Take your twaddle somewhere else.
Interesting dropping pretense…now they say “reduced building” so no more BS about the freeze and also interesting they are not allowing comments
If you think the NYT offers somewhat slanted explanations (and I agree), consider that here in Canada we have the Canwest newspaper chain, with far and away the largest circulation of dailies across the country. Here is an example of how the status of the settlements is helpfully explained to readers:
“About 500,000 Israelis live in Jewish settlements in West Bank areas that Palestinians consider illegal.”
See: link to canada.com
Well, I hope it’s not antisemitic to say so, but the CanWest chain is owned by the Asper family, whose zionist views seem to have infected the editorial pages.
An acquaintance of mine who’s worked at CanWest for years doing commentary says he’s on a short leash. Almost any subject can be criticized or satirized, he’s found … except Israel.
This anecdote perfectly encapsulates the Asper corpgov press:
————
In 1991, after acquiring a 20 percent stake in New Zealand’s TV3, Izzy Asper gathered 200 employees of the station in the cafeteria and astounded them by asking a journalist, “You. What business do you think you’re in?”
The journalist replied that “the business we’re in is to make sure our audience gets the most carefully researched news and information possible.” Asper asked the same questions of the drama and entertainment departments and got similar answers.
“You’re all wrong,” he told them. “You’re in the business of selling soap.”
link to fair.org
————
Uh huh — and the soft soap that Israel is Canada’s best chum.
Israel continues to play talmudic style word games, gobbling up the pizza to be divided while pretending it is not doing so. The US regime, as always, will ignore this deception, relying on its superpower status to keep EU countries, Turkey, and the Arab sheikdoms in line.
It gets tiresome to criticize all of the annoying subtle, and not-so-subtle, biases in the Times and similar MSM, because they are unceasing. But it never loses its value. A million fabrications now pass for gospel truth precisely because statements like these go unchallenged. Thanks, James.
If the Times knows the date and occasion when the occupation became legal, it should let its readers know.
Just to be clear, the occupation itself is legal. Israel’s actions as Occupying Power have not.
Occupation is a position of trust under the UN Charter which Israel agreed to uphold in it’s entirety. Israel has not observed it’s duties as the Occupying Power, instead it has illegally annexed, illegally settled it’s citizens in “territories occupied”.
Israel was left as the Occupying Power over non-state “territories occupied” under UNSC Res 242. The resolution is between states only all of whom were Regional Powers, all of whom had defined Sovereign boundaries. What lay outside of those Sovereign boundaries, by default, determines the boundaries of the non-state entity of Palestine. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel, then it’s a territory of the non-state entity of Palestine…
If the occupation is legal, why has the US been working for so many years to get a Munich style conference to settle the matter once and for all the way the Great Powers did in 1938?
Just because a situation is legal doesn’t mean it is permanent. Occupation is supposed to be an interim state, until the permanent boundaries are resolved.
What kind of justice system would make it legal that a mugger gets to keep any of his stolen loot?
Les….
The Occupying Power is meant to act as a trustee. Trustees are supposed protect entities who do not have the ability to fully protect themselves. The Occupying Power is decided through the armistice agreements (who continues to occupy territory on the cessation of hostilities) E.g., it was agreed between Israel and Jordan that Jordan would continue to occupy what became the West Bank. It was also agreed Egypt would continue to occupy the Gaza Strip.
The law actually comes down on the side of the occupied. Israel has done the opposite of what an Occupying Power is supposed to do. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal according to the UNSC. The settlements in “territories occupied” are illegal according to the UNSC.
However, the application of the law has been prevented by the US veto vote on Chapter Seven Resolutions in the UNSC.
To explain – There are basically two categories of resolution in the UNSC. Chapter Six which calls for the peaceful (pacific) settlement of issues according to the law. Israel has some 223 such resolutions against it, mostly reminders of previous, ignored resolutions and/or reminders of the law.
The US has abstained in voting on most of the Chapter Six Resolutions (in the hope that a majority will abstain, which would torpedo the resolution, or if the resolution is passed, they can say ‘we abstained, it wasn’t our decision’) .
If the offender ignores Chapter Six Resolutions, the matter can be put before the UNSC in order to prompt action being taken against them under Chapter Seven. Here the US hasn’t abstained, it has taken part in the voting process, vetoing the resolution. The resolution doesn’t see the light of day. They simply do not exist.
Under Chapter Eight Article: 54, Regional Powers may take action on submitting their intent to the UNSC.
Such a submission was the Arab States’ Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15th 1948. The declaration outlines the legal basis for taking action.
It was accepted by the UNSC. There is no UNSC resolution against the Arab States declared intention OR their action in invading Palestine in order to protect it against foreign forces (Israel).
Israel had declared it’s Sovereign territories while there were already Jewish forces outside of the newly declared Sovereignty, giving the Arab States a right to invade Palestine (of which Israel had just declared itself no longer a part).
If one reads the UNSC resolutions carefully, there are NONE that call for the cessation of hostilities ‘in Israel’ or ‘peace in Israel’. None of Israel’s wars have been fought in Israel’s actual declared Sovereign territory. It is a fallacy that Israel was attacked by five Arab armies.
potsherd
“..until the permanent boundaries are resolved”
Not quite. The boundaries between Israel and the non-state entity of Palestine were resolved by the Jewish People’s Council’s acceptance and declaration of sovereignty over the recommendations in UNGA Res 181 and their subsequent recognition by the majority of the International Community of Nations, over riding the Arab States’ legal objections.
Israel was declared and recognized as independent of Palestine.
Territories outside of a country’s declared boundaries, don’t belong to that country unless they are later legally annexed. Israel has never legally annexed any territories.
Occupation is an interim arrangement until such time as the occupied entity can stand on it’s own as an Independent State (the British Mandate) OR until it is annexed to an existing Independent Sovereign State. The borders only change in the latter.
Thanks, Talknic. Rashid Khalidi addresses the myth of seven (the number usually cited in Zionist propaganda) Arab armies, in The Iron Cage. He writes that of the seven independent Arab states at the time, Saudi Arabia and Yemen had no regular armies and no means of getting any forces they might have had to Palestine; Lebanese forces never crossed the international border; Iraq and Transjordan “scrupulously refrained from crossing the frontiers of the Jewish state laid down in the United Nations partition plan as per secret Jordanian understandings with both Britain and the Zionist leadership and thus never ‘invaded’ Israel”; and Syria “made only minor inroads across the new Israeli state’s frontiers”. “The only serious and long-standing incursion into the territory of the Jewish state … was that of the Egyptian army. Meanwhile, the fiercest fighting during the 1948 war took place with the Jordanian army during multiple Israeli offensives into areas assigned by the U.N. to the Arab state, or into the U.N. prescribed corpus separatum around Jerusalem”. (Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage [Boston: 2006], Introduction, xxxix)
helpful, thanks Shmuel
Hi Shmuel.
Thanks… Presenting anyone else’s work is usually met with derision ‘it is only an opinion’ and anything else that can be dredged up against the author, no matter how false or ridiculous, despite the accuracy of what might be written. One finds one’s self suddenly debating the worth of the author, rather than the validity of the material. A favourite ploy.
I’ve not read Rashid Khalidi and for the above reason don’t usually cite other folk’s work, purposefully keeping to primary documents, declarations, UNSC resolutions, official recognitions, armistice and peace agreements etc. Words that remain the same as when written, regardless of what might have been debated prior to and/or after the final draft. On the other hand, interpretations of resolutions, declarations etc are opinions and are contestable.
The Hasbara is replete with ‘other words’ in place of the actual wording in order to ‘explain’. Punctuation and structure are ignored. Words appear and disappear at will.
UNSC Res 242 is a classic example. It was bogged down on the word ‘the’. A typical diversion. Completely meaningless twaddle, purposefully sidetracking and delaying. I’ve never seen an explanation of how it actually changes the meaning. Shabtai Rosenne (rip) does a great legalese gymnastic routine to ‘explain’ on the Israeli Govt web site. Like Schwebel’s attempt to justify Israel’s ‘acquisition’ of territory (not sovereign to Israel) by war, Rosenne goes to great lengths in failing to actually explain how the omission of ‘the’ effects the meaning of the resolution.
It is quite obvious. “territories occupied” and not withdrawn from, are still occupied. If you park your car in the garage and don’t take it out, it’s still in the garage.
242 is between states only. Non-state entities such as Palestine are not UN Members, they can’t be censured by a club they don’t belong to (at the time Palestine did not even have observer status). The UN can only tell UN Members what they may or may not do in respect to non-members.
The other UNSC Res 242 favourite is ‘negotiate borders between Israel and Palestine. The words do not appear in the resolution. Nor does Palestine. Yet they’re repeated over and over like they’re gospel, by Presidents, Prime Ministers and statesmen no less. Such is the reach of Israeli propaganda.
The most pertinent clause in Res 242 is probably //Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force//
It is one sentence, calling for “respect for and acknowledgement of .. (all the elements that follow in the sentence)”. No mention of negotiations over those elements. “recognized” …the resolution is between existing Sovereign states, whose Sovereign boundaries were already recognized. The sentence calls for “respect for and acknowledgement of .. (what is already recognized in the sentence)” .
It is borne out in the Israeli Egyptian Peace agreement, where Israel is required to respect and acknowledge Egypt’s sovereignty by withdrawing from Egypt’s sovereign territories BEFORE peaceful relations resumed.
—–
I was initially prompted to find UNSC resolutions against the Arab States on the outset of the 1948 hostilities. It is customary for the UNSC to condemn an attack on an entities sovereign boundaries by a foreign power. (UNSC Resolution 660 on the invasion of Kuwait for an example)
The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was presented to the UNSC 15th May 1948. It was accepted by the UNSC as a valid legal justification for invading ‘Palestine’, not Israel. On careful reading, there is no threat to Israel in the document. It’s the official legal stance of the Arab States for attempting to protect their ward at the time.
It mentions nothing about driving Jews into the sea, in fact the exact opposite. “The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.”
How dare they… democracy, equal rights.
——–
In response to Rashid Khalidi’s assertions //Syria “made only minor inroads across the new Israeli state’s frontiers”. “The only serious and long-standing incursion into the territory of the Jewish state … was that of the Egyptian army. //
A) Once a war has started, warring parties are permitted to cross borders, attack military forces & installations and take territory for strategic military purposes for the duration of the war. These actions are not ‘condemned’ in any UNSC resolutions. Parties are reminded that it is ” inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war” and of course civilian life and property must be protected. After war, sovereign territories must be restorded to the sovereign. (as reflected in the Egypt/Israel Peace Agreement which finalized their part of UNSC Res 242)
B) Stephen M. Schwebel – Judge of International Court of Justice The state of “…the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht
territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word “unlawful” is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. “
Schwebel’s explanation is on UNSC Res 242′s ‘acquiring’ territory by war. Acquisition is not restoration of sovereignty.
C) None of the armistice agreements say ‘in Israel’. Israel had been declared independent of Palestine. They refer only to ‘in Palestine’
In respect to “the territory of the Jewish state” I presume this is a reference to the Al Faluja area. , which was NOT within Israel’s declared sovereign territories and never legally annexed to Israel (see detailed overlay for Google Earth of Israel’s declared sovereignty – load the overlay into Google Earth, then type ‘ Al Faluja Israel ‘ into the search box)
Egypt/Israel Armistice Agreement
// Article III
1. In pursuance of the Security Council’s resolution of 4 November 1948, and with a view to the implementation of the Security Council’s resolution of 16 November 1948, the Egyptian Military Forces in the AL FALUJA area shall be withdrawn.
2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier. //
NB: Egypt-Palestine frontier. Israel was declared independent of Palestine. See recognitions of Israel
Cha cha cha
Much of this discussion mixes two quite different things, the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians and the laws of war that apply to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians.
Military victories are often followed by occupations. Think of the occupying allied soldiers in Germany at the end of World War II. Whether you consider that occupation legal or not, the occupying armies were subject to the laws of war that apply to occupying armies and their treatment of the civilian population.
Ethan Bronner and the New York Times claim Israel’s occupation is legal though taking care to never indicate who or what made it so. That is the sole focus of their reporting. Keeping that as their big picture reduces their coverage of the war crimes committed by the occupier against the Palestinians, as mere trivia, no matter that’s what truly bothers people up to and including support for the Gaza flotillas.
Les
The matter is complicated by four main factors.
1) Israel wasn’t a UN Member State at the outset of the 1948 war of independence. It was not bound by the UN Charter, but was bound by it’s Declaration of Sovereignty, it’s subsequent recognition by the majority of the International Community of Nations and the International Laws it obliged itself to in order to gain international recognition. Including the Laws of War and the laws governing the establishment of Independent Sovereign States.
Under the Laws of War, it is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by force/war. (acquisition is not the same a ‘restoring’ already sovereign territory) The territories Israel ‘acquired’ during the War of Independence and claims as it’s own, were A) Outside of it’s declared sovereignty and never recognized as sovereign to Israel B) never legally annexed to Israel’s Sovereignty
Under the laws of War Art. 55. //“The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”//
2) Israel became a UN Member State 11 May 1949. From that point, Israel obliged itself to the UN Charter and all it encompasses.
3) The Geneva Conventions did not come into effect until 1950. However Israel did not ratified them until the 6th July 1951. This is outside the period of the war of Independence. The Geneva Conventions in respect to Israel, did not cover “territories occupied” by Israel during the war of Independence. However, International Law did. (International Law is formed by the majority of the International Community of Nations ratifying Conventions. The Laws of War are one such convention)
This is all prior to the ’67 war.
By ’67 Israel was a UN Member State and a ratified signatory to the Geneva Conventions (Israel has not signed the Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. These are additional o the original GC’s)
Under the GC’s “territories occupied” are governed by Military Law. Military Law demands the Occupying Power protect the occupied civilian population, their property and the occupied territory.
An Occupying Power cannot institute it’s own Civilian Law in “territories occupied”. It cannot annex “territories occupied” without the consent of the occupied. It cannot settle it’s own citizens population in “territories occupied”. It cannot sell real estate in “territories occupied” to it’s own citizens. It cannot build infrastructure or housing for it’s own citizens in “territories occupied”.
4) Israel has ignored all of the above. It has been enabled by the US veto vote on Chapter Seven Resolutions in the UNSC.
Hope this has made things clearer.
“Most” is not accurate. If you think it is, you’re part of more problem than one.
Neoconvict
Which ‘most’ are you taking about ?