Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
“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.
|
I'm still waiting for a quote from the original Al Jazeera article that claims - let alone proves - that they owned that house. If not, how can you call it a theft? How can you claim an "illegal displacement" if they were asked to either pay the rent or move out? Isn't it legal practice in all countries? It's not about papers and technicalities, they in fact never owned it. All they have is that they were allegedly promised to own it "after three years"and that alleged promise was made before 1967. I will not move to read another article until we are done discussing the first one.