U.M. OSINT referred to the debate, which had been intensively conducted again for the past two days, as leftist agitation and a seemingly legal discussion in which terms were being diluted. According to his representation, international law prohibits attacks on or the destruction of sovereign states, thereby protecting their right to exist. This is ensured internationally solely through the UN. Since Israel is a UN member, it has a right to exist; defined borders are not necessary for this. Israel's borders are largely defined by bilateral treaties, but not with the Palestinian territories, as these are not a state. Whether states emphasized or rejected Israel's right to exist is a political position, U.M. OSINT wrote. However, internationally, Israel's UN membership holds. He compared the debate to disputes over the terms "genocide," "intifada," and "anti-Semitism," accusing those who distorted terms of being unable to openly present their arguments. They may not want to explicitly say that they want to destroy Israel, he wrote in a harsh personal attack on the left. In conclusion, he described the actions as propaganda. #Völkerrecht #Israel #Politik (translated)


