Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not confused. It says Israel is to "withdraw its armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict". Those territories are the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. How much clearer does it have to be?It says to withdraw to secure borders, but borders can only be secure if the countriies at at peace, and those secure borders were successfully negotiated with Egypt and Jordan. Although every Israeli PM since the Six Day War has offered to return the Golan to Syria in return for peace up until Syria and Lebanon became failed states, the Syrian government refused to make peace with Israel, and that territory is forfeit to Israel.
"Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"
Perhaps it is the punctuation that confuses you.
I don't think it can be clearer than that.... It says Israel is to "withdraw its armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict". Those territories are the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. How much clearer does it have to be?
And there it is, plain and simple.It also says "...terminate all claims of belligerency...". Israel is the belligerent occupier of these territories. And there is only one thing you can do with an occupation, that is to end it!
You are clearly confused. Item 1 of 242 calls for secure borders and these can only be achieved with peace treaties, which Israel achieved with Egypt and Jordan, so that issue has been resolved as required by 242, and since Syria has refused to make peace with Israel, the issue of the Golan Heights cannot be resolved as 242 would have it, and now that Syria is a failed state, along with Lebanon, the Golan Heights no longer falls within the purview of 242.I'm not confused. It says Israel is to "withdraw its armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict". Those territories are the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. How much clearer does it have to be?
It also says "...terminate all claims of belligerency...". Israel is the belligerent occupier of these territories. And there is only one thing you can do with an occupation, that is to end it!
There is no difference between "must leave" and "withdrawl". 242 is binding. Therefore, "must leave" is correct.And you write in post 127, “the Israeli army must leave the occupied territories “
Notice the difference? If you read through the information the authors of 242 provided, you would see the major difference.
No, that's not what it says. Are you lying or just wilfully ignorant?I'm not confused. It says Israel is to "withdraw its armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict". Those territories are the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. How much clearer does it have to be?
It also says "...terminate all claims of belligerency...". Israel is the belligerent occupier of these territories. And there is only one thing you can do with an occupation, that is to end it!
That's not the part you changed. Just reread what the text's authors said.There is no difference between "must leave" and "withdrawl". 242 is binding. Therefore, "must leave" is correct.
Then why can't you name one country on the planet that agrees with you? If you are so legally right, as you claim, then surely you can name one other country that agrees with you? I'm just asking for one. Just one.When new States are created, unless otherwise agreed in a treaty, they inherit the legal boundaries of the last administration. That is international customary law, applied universally. It applies to Israel. The Mandate is very clear on the boundaries of the new State for the Jewish people.
I keep asking you for the details of the formation of another State in the territory who could possibly lay sovereign claim to any part of the territory. There are four things they need to be a State: a defined people; a defined territory; a government; recognition.
This mysterious other State. What was the territory of that State? What are its boundaries? Who is its government? In which treaty would I find all of this information? (You can't, because there isn't one).
You are not arguing from a legal perspective. You are arguing from a moral and political perspective. That's fine. The principle of self-determination is an applicable political concept, and can have international law applied to it. The people who are seeking this self-determination can be defined. They are the group of people with Arab ethnicity, and all their descendants, who were resident in the Mandate for Palestine circa 1948, who decline Israeli citizenship, and wish to have self-determination in the form of a State in the territory.
The trouble is that in order for them to form such a State, they have to make an agreement with Israel as to where Israel ends and Palestine starts. IF there is such an agreement, just name it. Problem solved. Argument won. But there is not an agreement. And so. There is no occupation.
The October 7 attack by Hamas was revenge for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians murdered by the Zionist regime.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Secure and recognized borders include the Palestinians.You are clearly confused. Item 1 of 242 calls for secure borders and these can only be achieved with peace treaties, which Israel achieved with Egypt and Jordan, so that issue has been resolved as required by 242, and since Syria has refused to make peace with Israel, the issue of the Golan Heights cannot be resolved as 242 would have it, and now that Syria is a failed state, along with Lebanon, the Golan Heights no longer falls within the purview of 242.
You fool no one by editing item 1 of 242.
No doubt true and so you again raise the question on why it's the Jews that are always the victims? If it was limited to action taken by the Zionist regime then it would be obvious that their genocide was Islam's justification!Since 1948, the Palestinians and some Arab states have repeatedly attacked Israel. Both using conventional force and terrorist mass murder.
And that bring up the question on whether or not the Zionists can attack Iran with impunity to inflict suffering on Iran many times greater than the pinprick demonstration by Iran.The Palestinians keep losing the conventional wars and land along with it. But they're stupid enough to continue. Most Arab countries have abandoned them.
Isreal's expanding it's borders and reducing the Pales'.Since 1948, the Palestinians and some Arab states have repeatedly attacked Israel. Both using conventional force and terrorist mass murder.
The Palestinians keep losing the conventional wars and land along with it. But they're stupid enough to continue. Most Arab countries have abandoned them.
Yes, there has been massive killing and murder on both sides.
But the fact is, the Palestinians started it, and the Palestinians keep the conflict going. They have never accepted any peace proposals other that the destruction of Israel and the elimination of all Jews in Israel.
Israel and the Israeli people have a right to exist and has always accepted peaceful Palestinians living in Israel. 20% of Israel's population are Palestinian.
The Palestinians are now and always have been the aggressors.
There is no justification for the Oct. 7 attack!
No doubt true and so you again raise the question on why it's the Jews that are always the victims? If it was limited to action taken by the Zionist regime then it would be obvious that their genocide was Islam's justification!
And that bring up the question on whether or not the Zionists can attack Iran with impunity to inflict suffering on Iran many times greater than the pinprick demonstration by Iran.
Let me know if there's any other point you are asking me to address?
What I put in quotes, is what it says.No, that's not what it says. Are you lying or just wilfully ignorant?
I didn't change anything.That's not the part you changed. Just reread what the text's authors said.
In is an interesting question, isn't it? There is an internationally recognized customary law which applies universally, in every single case, except for Israel. Why is that, do you think?Then why can't you name one country on the planet that agrees with you? If you are so legally right, as you claim, then surely you can name one other country that agrees with you? I'm just asking for one. Just one.
Name me one country on this planet that has come out and publicly recognized Israel's right to that land!
242 only discusses the States in the area. No mention of a Palestine.Secure and recognized borders include the Palestinians.
Why can't you just answer the question? If you are right, how come nobody agrees with you?In is an interesting question, isn't it? There is an internationally recognized customary law which applies universally, in every single case, except for Israel. Why is that, do you think?
Any country which calls for a two-state solution recognizes that there are NOT two existing States, else they would not be requiring a solution. States that do not recognize Palestine include: Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Italy, and the United States. "Palestine" remains an observer only (thanks, USA).
The REASON for this is the requirement for a peace treaty in place between Israel and Palestine, delineating the territory to which the State of Palestine will have territorial integrity. This is what I have been arguing.
How convenient?242 only discusses the States in the area. No mention of a Palestine.
With an attitude like that, we'll never find common ground my friend. Have a nice day!Your first statement makes no sense. Please explain it.
Iran had inflicted mass murder by supporting & training Hamas, and supporting, training, supplying and advising Hezbollah.
Iran has been waging war against Israel and the U.S. as much as they are capable of. It's long overdue for Israel and the U.S to stop playing Iran's game and strike at the heart of the problem.
As we Americans used to say:
"Hit Hitler at Home!"
Did they have any similar sayings in Russia?
This is where I keep asking you to show me when and how "Palestine" gained "title". If "Palestine" doesn't have "title", it isn't occupied, and you have to ask yourself who does have title.I didn't change anything.
I couldn't help but notice you left out this part of 242...
... "the inadmissibility of territory by war..."
The Laws of Occupation state you cannot change the title of any area under the belligerent Occupation of a foreign force.
