“Stop fillibustering. I asked you for anything that proves the annexation was illegal, be it UN resolution, ICJ ruling or any ruling by an equally legitimate legal body.”
Hahahaha! Awesome. So you’re just retreating to demanding an absurdly specific benchmark before you’ll recognize any violation of law. Yeah, no one will figure that one out. The UN isn’t even a legal body, you’re just picking qualifications based on who is most biased against Israel.
“It’s only clear and obvious once it’s been established by a legal body, so who ruled that Jordan had no right?
It’s not incumbent upon me to prove legality. You’re the one claiming it was illegal. So where is your proof?”
Thank you. By resorting to such blatantly dishonest debate you’re making this very easy. If Israel were actually in the wrong here I imagine you would not have to resort to such ridiculous tactics.
“They were based on customary law, which was in place in 1948.”
I’m sorry, but no. You have zero evidence because you are wrong.
“What are you babbling about? Refugee law is a law.”
Actually, you are just saying “refugee law” over and over again. There isn’t an actual law like you are describing.
“Dayton was based on refugee and customary international law”
No, Dayton is a treaty. The “refugee and customary international law” you’re mentioning is non-existent. Which is why you spent so much time describing Dayton… because the supposed actual law that it’s based on is imaginary.
“Perhaps, but that is not evidence that the annexations was illegal. ”
Well, unless you believe that any nation can legally invade, ethnically cleanse and then unilaterally annex territory outside of its own borders, whenever it wants, then you have to admit that Jordan’s annexation of EJ is illegal.
“Rubbish. The massacre took place AFTER Jordan has lost control of the territory.”
So? It still happened as I described.