Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointman
What's so bizarre. The article literally says that they didn't own the home. You now see that you made a blunder with that article so you desperately trying to substitute it with another article. And if it will also turn out to mean something else, if not yhe opposite, you will randomly grab yet another article hoping that something will stick
|
“Blunder” “desperate” what are you even talking about? That was my first read of the article, where did I “blunder”.” You ignored 90% of it because it didn’t fit your worldview and hilariously misinterpreted the importance of the one line, and now you’re waving your hands around with “see?? see?? they didn’t own it!!!” like an idiot.
It doesn’t matter if they have the papers, the homes were built for those families and they lived in them. They were their homes. East Jerusalem is occupied territory and it is illegal to displace people in occupied territory, and could constitute a war crime.
“Oh well they didn’t have the papers!” is the dumbest possible way to excuse that. A literal child could understand the issue better than you have.
Now, read the NY Times article and prove you’re better than you’ve shown.