Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

David Singer: Trump and May Must Circumvent Security Council Resolution 2334

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Trump’s meeting with UK prime minister Theresa May this coming Friday affords them a perfect opportunity to discuss reaffirming their countries commitments to the Jewish People made by America in 2004 and Great Britain in 1922 – which were seriously undermined when neither country vetoed Security Council Resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016.

America’s commitments were given in a letter from President George Bush to then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004 to:
* encourage Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza and part of the West Bank and
* give the Bush-Quartet Roadmap (“Roadmap”) every chance of ending a conflict that had raged unresolved for about 85 years.
Bush’s commitments included:
1. Preventing any attempt by anyone to impose any plan other than the Roadmap.
2. Acknowledging that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between Israel and the PLO in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.
3. Agreeing in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, that it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.
These commitments were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes to 12.

President Obama actively attempted to subvert these commitments during his eight years in office  – culminating in Obama’s failure to veto Resolution 2334 in the dying days of his presidency – which trashed the above commitments and made them meaningless.

Great Britain had pledged to the Jewish People in 1922 that the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine would take place within 23 per cent of the territory designated in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – today called Israel, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) – whilst the remaining 77 per cent would become an Arab homeland – today called Jordan.

This 23/77 division was embodied in Article 25 of the Mandate – after violent Arab riots in 1920-21 accompanied by strident and strenuous Palestinian Arab political opposition to any idea of a Jewish National Home in Palestine had led to the British White Paper in June 1922 declaring that Arab apprehensions were partly based on exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration.

The White Paper stated:
'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view [of the Balfour Declaration – ed] is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded ‘in Palestine'.”
Resolution 2334 has now declared as illegal the rights vested by the Mandate in the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in East Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank)  – despite such rights having been preserved by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Vetoing Resolution 2334 would have averted America and the UK betraying their commitments to the Jewish People.

Reaffirming those commitments will do more to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict than moving the American embassy to Jerusalem.

Commitments when made by States should never be shredded without mutual agreement.

57 comments:

  1. David,

    Why would you want to reaffirm the Bush Roadmap, which calls for:

    "a permanent two-state solution...";

    especially when Trump and the new republican platform have eliminated the concept of the creation of an independent Arab Palestine and any reference to a two-state solution and when new autonomy plans are being presented?

    Why can't you let the two-state solution die of natural causes and be relegated to the trash heap of history where it belongs?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't want Trump to affirm the Roadmap.

    I want Trump to affirm the commitments President Bush made to Israel which were overwhelmingly supported by the Congress but disgracefully undermined by Obama and Kerry.

    One cannot cherry pick bits and pieces of the Bush commitments. They were a package offered to Sharon and accepted by him as a quid pro quo for Israel disengaging from Gaza and part of the West Bank.

    The solution called for in the Bush Roadmap:
    "A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and
    security with Israel and its other neighbors."

    The Group of 70 in Paris are fighting desperately to keep the negotiating process alive by sneakily omitting the need for any Palestinian State to be "democratic".

    Israel needs to tell them where to get off.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Still you refer to your dismay with the Group of 70 which you lament

    "sneakily [omitted] the need for any Palestinian State to be 'democratic'".

    Again, why even discuss whether a future Arab "Palestinian" state will be Democratic or not, given that there should NEVER be an Arab Palestinian state.

    To reiterate, Trump and the new republican platform have eliminated the concept of the an independent Arab Palestine and any reference to a two-state solution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Noah
    You state:
    "To reiterate, Trump and the new republican platform have eliminated the concept of the an independent Arab Palestine and any reference to a two-state solution."

    Please refer me specifically to the statement you rely on to make this claim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. David,

    Below is a link to the Republican Party Platform.

    IT contains no reference to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

    INSTEAD, it affirms that the U.S. “seeks to assist in the establishment of a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East".

    As such, it defers to Israel to determine whether it is interested in negotiating a deal with the Palestinians.

    However, to reiterate, it omits any reference to a solution that would establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel and it refers to all of Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal and indivisible capital".

    https://www.gop.com/platform/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Noah

    You are being less than truthful.

    This is what the platform actually says - including an important part deliberately left out by you:

    "The United States seeks to assist in the establishment
    of comprehensive and lasting peace in the
    Middle East, to be negotiated among those living
    in the region."

    This statement:

    1. does not in itself preclude the possible establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a negotiated settlement
    2. does not defer to Israel deciding whether to negotiate or not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. David,

    The phrase "to be negotiated among those living in the region" in no way implies a "2-State Solution", nor is it in any way significant.

    What is significant, is that this is the first Republican platform in my lifetime (and I assume yours) that makes absolutely no mention of an Arab "Palestinian" state.

    Further, while the phrase "negotiated among those..." has unlimited meaning, when combined with phrases and actions such as:

    - "we reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier"
    - "Israeli-controlled territories", instead of "Occupied" or "disputed" territories
    - "we recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state"
    - Allowing the construction now occurring in J&S with no comment

    it is blatantly clear that this administration has dropped the notion of a two state solution.

    To insist that it is the desired outcome or even a focus of the Trump admin. would be disingenuous to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Noah
      If "to be negotiated among those living in the region" is insignificant - why was it included?

      I have given you my interpretation of the platform. Please do not try to put into my mouth words I never said.

      This seems to be a bad habit of yours,

      Delete
  8. David,

    It was included because the parties with whom Israel may negotiate include Jordan and possibly Egypt, but not the Arab "Palestinians".

    For example, it is very feasible that the Jordanian-Israeli condominium may return as a possible solution or that Jordan will be given some J&S territory in exchange for taking control of the Arab "Palestinians".

    What is clear is that Oslo and an independent Arab "Palestinian" state is dead.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oslo and an independent Arab "Palestinian" State are in their death throes - but have not been formally declared dead yet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why do you insist on keeping it alive?
    Its not good for either party......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not insisting on keeping it alive. I am just telling you as a matter of fact that it is not dead yet...I have consistently written for years that it is doomed to failure and I believe we are now getting very close to that point. I try to base my analysis on facts - not make believe or wishful thinking

      Delete
  11. David,

    Why get mired in semantics.
    It is clear, there will not be an Arab "Palestinian" terror state on Israel's border.
    2-States is dead.
    There is only one state for one people. Israel; for the Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why say something is dead when it is not dead? Guess it goes to your credibility. Maybe you don't care about being a credble person. I do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let me rephrase so as to meet your credibility test.

    The 2-State solution as envisioned by Bill Clinton and OSLO (and I imagine you too) whereby another Arab terrorist state (or possibly more than 1) is to be created on Israel's border is 100% dead beyond a shadow of a doubt!

    ReplyDelete
  14. You have badly failed the credibility test in declaring something 100% dead when it isn't. Indeed you are going from bad to worse with each comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David - Tell me who still maintains that an Oslo-style 2-state solution is alive?

      Delete
  15. David, - Show me where it is still alive.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The United Nations Security Council

    ReplyDelete
  17. That may have been the case under Obama.
    However, under Trump, the UNSC no loger supports a 2-State solution.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Absolute and utter rubbish. Your cedibility has hit rock bottom. It can only go from there to the depths of total stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [RESEND]

      David,

      In typical liberal fashion, when the facts don't support your point you resort to insults.

      Firstly, Trump's security council does not support a 2-state solution.

      Secondly, the 2-state solution proposed by Res. 2334 is vastly different from the Clinton parameters, the Bush Roadmap and the Bush/Sharon letter, all of which were based on Res. 242 and which you consistently and incorrectly claim form the basis for the international communities desired resolution to the "conflict".

      In sharp contrast to UNSC Res. 2424, the paradigm shift proposed by Res. 2334 explicitly establishes the June 4, 1967 boundaries (Greenline) with potential "land swaps" as the starting point of final status negotiations providing a lack of incentive for the Arabs to negotiate.

      This was not envisioned by the Bush Roadmap nor the Bush letter to Sharon which you constantly tout. In sharp contrast to Res. 2334, Bush did not envision full withdrawal.

      Instead, he indicated

      'it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities

      More so, unlike Res. 2334, Bush did not make the retention of “Israeli population centers” in the West Bank contingent upon Israel agreeing to land swaps, using territory under Israeli sovereignty from within the pre-1967 borders.
      Thus, it is you who is confused. Do you you support the new paradigm as proposed by Res. 2334 or a solution based on Res. 242, which is now obsolete?

      Either way, for a lawyer you demonstrate a surprising lack of logic.

      Delete
  19. Saying something is dead when it is still alive requires commmonsense.Logic is unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My analysis is based on truths. Thus, logic and common sense are the same.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not to mention, that it would appear that many well respected individuals, even authorities on the topic, agree with me...

    see my reply to your article posted today.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If you cannot tell what is dead and what is alive then I am afraid I cannot help you any further.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What article are you referring to? Please provide the link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It must be this one, David:
      http://daphneanson.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/david-singer-netanyahu-needs-trump.html
      The latest article of yours, and the most recent post on here.

      Delete
  24. Noah

    Could you please name the "well respected individuals, even authorities" who agree with you that the two-state solution is dead.

    Please provide the direct evidence of statements made by such people stating this fact (not links to articles that I am supposed to trawl through to try and find this needle in the haystack).

    You made the claim the two-state solution is dead.

    Substantiate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David - On second thought, I will do a bit of your work for you.

      WE are in route to FULL annexation and have just put a large knife into your 2-state pipe dream whereby an Arab terrorist state would be created on our borders.....

      “...This is an historic day for the settlements and the State of Israel. Today the State of Israel decided that the development and advancement of the settlement of Judea and Samaria is an Israeli interest, as it states in the law...

      From here we will continue on to apply sovereignty, and continue to build and expand settlements everywhere in the land.”

      WE are exercising sovereignty over all of the land!

      Delete
    2. Noah
      You are at it again - trying to fit me with something I never wrote.
      For the last ten years I have been consistently writing articles on why the two state solution postulated by Oslo and the Roadmap would never eventuate.
      The only possible two state solution is the one first contemplated in 1922 - which has been 95% completed - only now requiring the international border to be redrawn between Jordan and Israel - the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine.
      Please try and control yourself and desist from making any further false and defamatory accusations.
      FULL annexation? You are off on another flight of fancy.

      Delete
    3. David - I don't know if you are coming or going.

      The 1922 Mandate for Palestine Art. 25, "temporarily" gave Jordan control of the territory East of the Jordan.

      This is the land Jordan currently comprises. It is not entitled under international law to any land West of the River.

      Further, there is an international border between Jordan & Israel

      What exactly do you mean by the following:

      "The only possible two state solution is the one first contemplated in 1922 - which has been 95% completed - only now requiring the international border to be redrawn between Jordan and Israel...".

      What are you talking about?

      Please explain.

      Delete
    4. Noah
      You state:
      "The 1922 Mandate for Palestine Art. 25, "temporarily" gave Jordan control of the territory East of the Jordan."
      When did this temporary occupation end?

      Delete
    5. ONCE AGAIN, you deflect and avoid answering the question>

      But, I will respond.
      It hasn't ended. Hence, technically / legally, the land occupied by Jordan is that of Israel (Don't need to be an international legal expert to understand this).

      Art. 25 of the Mandate states:

      "...postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions..."

      But again, you have avoided answering my question.

      What exactly do you mean by the following:

      "The only possible two state solution is the one first contemplated in 1922 - which has been 95% completed - only now requiring the international border to be redrawn between Jordan and Israel...".

      Delete
    6. Noah
      You state:
      " Hence, technically / legally, the land occupied by Jordan is that of Israel (Don't need to be an international legal expert to understand this)."
      Obviously you are not an international legal expert or have any legal training to make such a ridiculous statement.
      How can the land occupied by Jordan be that of Israel when Israel has a signed peace treaty with Jordan recognising Jordan's sovereignty in that land?

      What do I mean by my statement:
      "The only possible two state solution is the one first contemplated in 1922 - which has been 95% completed - only now requiring the international border to be redrawn between Jordan and Israel...".

      This is what I mean:
      Sovereignty in 95% of the territory designated in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine has already been allocated between Jordan (78%) and Israel (17%). Only 5% remains unallocated. My proposal is that sovereignty in that remaining 5% be allocated between Jordan and Israel in direct negotiations.

      That is what I have been proposing for the last 40 years. Maybe we are now seeing some hope that this solution might come to fruition after four decades during which millions of Jews and Arabs have been killed, wounded and traumatised by many wars and continuous and unrelenting terrorism.

      You proposals are triggers that guarantee the conflict will continue. My proposal is a trigger to try and end a conflict which has remained unresolved for 100 years.

      Delete
    7. Exactly. So you agree with my point.

      The following comment

      "Hence, technically / legally, the land occupied by Jordan is that of Israel"

      demonstrates that Israel under a peace agreement with Jordan, already conceded ITS land for a "Palestinian" state.

      Thus, the 2-state solution you speak of is complete (as you stated, we have signed a Peace Treaty whereby we gave land that under the Mandate is ours).

      Therefore, there is no need nor will there be any further concessions of our land to create another Arab "terrorist" state.

      Delete
    8. I do not agree with your point.

      The land occupied by Jordan is not that of Israel.

      Israel did not concede ITS land for a "Palestinian State"

      The two-state solution is not complete.

      We did not give land under the Mandate that is ours

      Believe what you will - but do not continue doing so by falsely claiming that I agree with you - because I don't.

      Delete
    9. David,

      Under international law, ALL the land previously known as "Palestine," or "South Syria,", which now comprises Jordan was legally that of the Jews.

      It had been designated by international mandate as a "Jewish National Home. specifically:

      - Husain-McMahon correspondence

      - San Remo Res.

      - The Mandate (e.g. Art 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration, ... and close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.); and

      - Art. 80 of UN Charter

      More so, Art. 5 of the Mandate states "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power".

      THUS, NO MATTER how many times you write to the contrary, it will not change the fact that ALL of PALESTINE legally is Jewish Land.

      Delete
    10. 1. Are you a lawyer?

      2. Can you cite one authority, legal or otherwise, who supports your claim that:
      "Under international law, ALL the land previously known as "Palestine," or "South Syria,", which now comprises Jordan was legally that of the Jews."

      Delete
    11. Whether or not you agree with my point, it is accurate.

      Despite Mandate Article 25 which entitled the Mandatory temporarily to change the terms of the Mandate in the part of the Mandate east of the Jordan River, all of it belongs to the Jews. It states the following:

      "In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provision of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions...".

      Note the key words "Postpone" and the related context.

      The fact remains that under international law (which you claim to be an expert of, yet have failed to demonstrate to be true) all of the Mandated territory is ours.

      I am sure you are aware of our rights under international law. However, at the risk of being repetitive, I list the key items as follows:

      - San Remo Resolution

      - The Mandate for Palestine, specifically Art. 6 which states "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

      Note that nowhere in the above does it say we are only entitled to the western part of "Palestine."

      Article 6 is further bolstered by Article 5 which states

      "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power".

      - UN Charter Article 80

      Once again, your statement that we did not give land that belonged to us conflicts greatly with the facts and borders on the insane.

      Delete
    12. Above, I cited the legal documents (e.g. treaties, etc.) which gave us title to the territory today known as Jordan.

      Did you read it?

      Delete
    13. AND yes, HOWARD GRIEF would agree with me.

      How is that for a legal authority? Good enough for you?

      Delete
    14. David - Did you read my post above?

      The Documents I cited clearly support my point.

      However, to answer your question, HOWARD GRIEF would FULLY support my point.

      Does he qualify for you?

      Delete
    15. [Daphne, I keep posting this but it doesn't appear]

      David - Have you bothered to read my above post which clearly lays out the international agreements which support my point.

      AND YES, HOWARD GRIEF would FULLY agree with me.

      In fact, I have large paper of his from Ariel Center for Policy Research on this exact topic.

      Does he qualify for you?

      Delete
    16. Howard Grief died in 2013 so he would not be able to FULLY AGREE with you.

      I suggest you do the following:

      1. Detail and particularise all the claims you want to make

      2. Extract from Grief's articles or papers the verbatim extracts that you say support your claims and the link or page where they can be found.

      Then we may be able to have a rational discussion on your specific claims - as backed up by Grief

      Delete
    17. We all know of his passing (no need to rehash it).

      However, his passing doesn't change the fact that he AGREES with ME or I should say, my analysis is based in part on his analysis.

      Again, I am not going to do your work for you. You can contact ACPR for the detail should you wish to read his paper yourself.

      Bottom Line, I am correct.

      I assume, you can merely Google his opinion.

      Delete
    18. You state:
      "However, his passing doesn't change the fact that he AGREES with ME or I should say, my analysis is based in part on his analysis."

      How nice of you to show some humility. About time you did do just that.

      Now you say your analysis is only partly based on Grief's analysis?

      Who are the other persons on whose analysis you have relied?

      Again I ask you to detail:
      1. What you are claiming

      2. Quote verbatim who - whether Grief or someone else - backs up your claim by putting up a link or page reference.

      If you want to make claims - be prepared to substantiate them.

      Delete
    19. David- You are great a great deflector.
      All you do is change the topic.

      In addition to Howard Grief , I have read almost everything thing I can find over the last 20 years, including Glick, Gerson, Grief, and many authors at JCPA to name but a mere few.

      When I am not building power plants across S.E. Asia, I am reading about Israel.

      While I don't have a law degree like you (only a mere Bachelor in Economics and Finance from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, I understand the situation in Israel.

      If you wish to disprove me, then you get the Document (or give me your email) and read it. Then, you can site "verbatim" where my opinion is not supported.

      Further, feel free to quote your own sources.

      However, once again, I will NOT do your work for you.

      Delete
    20. As they say in the classics ...
      ... put up or shut up.

      You make the claims...
      ...You substantiate them

      Delete
    21. David - I have put up, I guess you have chosen to shut up (for lack of facts)!

      Delete
    22. David - maybe your lack of knowledge is why every article you write is says the same thing with a different title:

      re: Bush Letter and dead 2-state solution.

      Delete
    23. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    24. [RESEND]

      David - Not to mention, every article out in the last few weeks and especially today (from the Jewish Press to Arutz Sheva to Joel Fishman) acknowledges 2-state solution is dead.

      The only periodicals (if you can call them that) which still discuss the viability of your 2-state Solution are Haaretz and TOI.

      I am afraid, your opinions are completely outdated.

      Delete
    25. Noah

      Netanyahu and Trump do not agree with you that the 2 state solution is dead.
      "Trump believes in a deal and in running peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians,” the prime minister was quoted as saying. “We should be careful and not do things that will cause everything to break down. We mustn’t get into a confrontation with him.”
      http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-lands-in-us-ahead-of-white-house-meeting-with-trump/

      But of course you know better. Stick to power plants mate. Your political analysis is far removed from the reality of what is going on at this very moment in history.

      Delete
  25. David,

    1. You keep deflecting my points with out providing factual answers; and

    2. I posted 2 articles to your latest post supporting my point. However, I will not do your work for you.

    If you are too lazy or just unwilling to read them then simply refer to the Trump administrations latest statement on Settlements this past Thursday, which states

    "the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”.

    In summary, that statement does the following:
    1. Gives implicit approval to construction within existing settlements, not just communities within the settlement blocs (e.g.. Gush Etzion, Ariel, etc), but rather to all settlements (see Eugene Kontorovich on the topic); and

    2. By making absolutely no mention of 2-states while simultaneously supporting settlement expansion, demonstrates Trump is not committed to a two-state solution.

    If you disagree with me, take it up with

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A meaningless post that cannot allow any sort of meaningful answer.

      Delete
  26. Noah

    What does it take to make you understand that you cannot make a claim and rely on persons who you say support your claim without expressly pointing out where they specifically do so. Not just a book or a paper - but an express reference in that book or paper (page number, quote etc) that supports your viewpoint.

    Your statement:
    "If you wish to disprove me, then you get the Document (or give me your email) and read it. Then, you can site "verbatim" where my opinion is not supported"
    is a load of garbage.

    I am not going to read your Document. Why should I waste my time doing that? You are making the claim that such Document supports your viewpoint. Quote the page and quote the statement you claim supports you.

    The onus is on you to prove your statements with supporting evidence. When you have done that the onus is on me to disprove your statement with evidence to the contrary.

    So far you have failed to discharge the onus of proof incumbent on you.

    You might be good at building a power plant but you are no good at building a legal case.

    ReplyDelete