You validated position that PRC has weak historic claims in a comment that started that TW can only be PRC territory according law of to might is right. I clari

You validated position that PRC has weak historic claims in a comment that started that TW can only be PRC territory according law of to might is right. I clarified, that TW, is already dejure Chinese territory under UN based on post war agreements, so any historic de jure argument based on Qing is a distraction when you claimed "any dejure claim" China has on TW should be based on historic XYZ, and invalid claim when it's already already settled dejure international law. It doesn't need to be based on the historic context you outlined. My beef are with arguments that sets up strawman arguments of why China has no/weak dejure argument for TW being part of China as if it's premised on TW is not ALREADY dejure recognized as part of China. Discussing unsettled Palestine status at UN with whatever context is sensible because it's not a settled question. VS TW being part China is ratified law with well understood historic basis, which makes efforts to portray it as not appear to be suspect and dishonest. I also highlighted these are old/well trod (failed) arguments that well funded think tanks already tried to carve more legitimacy for TW in international bodies, including by the folks at GMF who tried to push hard using historic arguments in their pior work at other organizations. So I'm also point out that assertion that "any dejure claim" based on history is false in existing international law context, it's also false in past/ongoing attempts to circumvent established Chinese dejure claims over TW context.