Israeli soldiers are killing themselves

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

Well, Yes you can read simple English; but, this is not simple English.

I can read simple English. Resolution 242 is quite clear about the need for Israel to remove all its troops from the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Yes I have questions:

View attachment 106376
​

• Is the Resolution Binding?
• Did the Resolution as "ALL" forces?
• Did it say "ALL" territory occupied?
​

You will notice that in 1(ii) it does specific "ALL" --- as in "ALL claims or states of belligerency."

You are making assumptions not substantiated by the facts.

One big assumption is that you assume the purpose of the Resolution is that the Arab League Forces and participating nation would be allowed to replay the down without any penalty for provoking the flash conflict. The Arab League was caught by surprise when, after being decisively defeated, that they were not just given back territory lost.

In fact, even today, while:

• Israel and Egypt are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish back the Military Governorship of Gaza. Even if the Israelis were to withdraw from Gaza, which it has, it should have been placed under Egyptian Military Rule as it was when it was originally occupied by the Israelis.
• Israel and Jordan are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish the territory back to sovereign Jordanian control.
​

The reason is quite simple, the Arab League has come to realize that the West Bank and Gaza Strip represent and parasitic and economic albatross; as well as a internal security threat.

• ≈ 70% of the refugees living in UNRWA camps owned their own homes,
• Those who didn’t own their own homes:

• Pay no rent,
• Pay no municipal taxes,
• Pay no for no utilities

Free access to water and sanitation services.
​

There is a lot more to the issue that is normally considered. It is like an iceberg, four-fifths below the surface.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure it is. It's simpler to read than your posts. Sorry.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

Well, Yes you can read simple English; but, this is not simple English.

I can read simple English. Resolution 242 is quite clear about the need for Israel to remove all its troops from the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Yes I have questions:

View attachment 106376
​

• Is the Resolution Binding?
• Did the Resolution as "ALL" forces?
• Did it say "ALL" territory occupied?
​

You will notice that in 1(ii) it does specific "ALL" --- as in "ALL claims or states of belligerency."

You are making assumptions not substantiated by the facts.

One big assumption is that you assume the purpose of the Resolution is that the Arab League Forces and participating nation would be allowed to replay the down without any penalty for provoking the flash conflict. The Arab League was caught by surprise when, after being decisively defeated, that they were not just given back territory lost.

In fact, even today, while:

• Israel and Egypt are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish back the Military Governorship of Gaza. Even if the Israelis were to withdraw from Gaza, which it has, it should have been placed under Egyptian Military Rule as it was when it was originally occupied by the Israelis.
• Israel and Jordan are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish the territory back to sovereign Jordanian control.
​

The reason is quite simple, the Arab League has come to realize that the West Bank and Gaza Strip represent and parasitic and economic albatross; as well as a internal security threat.

• ≈ 70% of the refugees living in UNRWA camps owned their own homes,
• Those who didn’t own their own homes:

• Pay no rent,
• Pay no municipal taxes,
• Pay no for no utilities

Free access to water and sanitation services.
​

There is a lot more to the issue that is normally considered. It is like an iceberg, four-fifths below the surface.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure it is. It's simpler to read than your posts. Sorry.

(COMMENT)

Did you answer the questions?
• Is the Resolution Binding?
• Did the Resolution say "ALL" forces?
• Did it say "ALL" territory occupied?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Hilarious. Love the clown dancing. But let's humor the clown.

1. Even if clown dancers claim, erroneously, that Res. 242 in and of itself is not binding, it is rendered definitively binding by Resolution 338, to wit:

"2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;"

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7FB7C26FCBE80A31852560C50065F878

2. It did not need to state "all forces". By stating "armed forces" it requires Israel to remove forces that are armed from the territory it occupied.

3. It did not need to state "all territory occupied". Territory occupied means territory occupied, not some or part of the territory occupied.

Furthermore, in both cases, the official French translation provided to the French speaking members of the UNSC makes it clear what the intent was. The Zionist attempts at claiming that "des" is there for grammatical reasons is ridiculous. If translated to mean less than all the territory or less than all the armed forces words such as "certains", "quelques-uns/unes, etc. would prefaces the words "forces armées" and "territoires".

1. Affirme que l'accomplissement des principes de la Charte exige l'instauration d'une paix juste et durable au Proche-Orient qui devrait comprendre l'application des deux principes suivants :
a. Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés au cours du récent conflit ; 12

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

Well, Yes you can read simple English; but, this is not simple English.

I can read simple English. Resolution 242 is quite clear about the need for Israel to remove all its troops from the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Yes I have questions:

View attachment 106376
​

• Is the Resolution Binding?
• Did the Resolution as "ALL" forces?
• Did it say "ALL" territory occupied?
​

You will notice that in 1(ii) it does specific "ALL" --- as in "ALL claims or states of belligerency."

You are making assumptions not substantiated by the facts.

One big assumption is that you assume the purpose of the Resolution is that the Arab League Forces and participating nation would be allowed to replay the down without any penalty for provoking the flash conflict. The Arab League was caught by surprise when, after being decisively defeated, that they were not just given back territory lost.

In fact, even today, while:

• Israel and Egypt are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish back the Military Governorship of Gaza. Even if the Israelis were to withdraw from Gaza, which it has, it should have been placed under Egyptian Military Rule as it was when it was originally occupied by the Israelis.
• Israel and Jordan are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish the territory back to sovereign Jordanian control.
​

The reason is quite simple, the Arab League has come to realize that the West Bank and Gaza Strip represent and parasitic and economic albatross; as well as a internal security threat.

• ≈ 70% of the refugees living in UNRWA camps owned their own homes,
• Those who didn’t own their own homes:

• Pay no rent,
• Pay no municipal taxes,
• Pay no for no utilities

Free access to water and sanitation services.
​

There is a lot more to the issue that is normally considered. It is like an iceberg, four-fifths below the surface.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure it is. It's simpler to read than your posts. Sorry.

(COMMENT)

Did you answer the questions?
• Is the Resolution Binding?
• Did the Resolution say "ALL" forces?
• Did it say "ALL" territory occupied?

Most Respectfully,
R

Resolution 242 is not binding. -- The Israelis can and do ignore the Resolution.
It did not say "ALL" forces. -- The Israelis can remove a jeep and two soldiers and maintain that they are true to the letter of the Resolution.
It did not say "ALL" territory. -- The Israelis can similarly let Palestinians live on more than an acre of desert and claim that they are being magnanimous.

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Well, Yes you can read simple English; but, this is not simple English.

I can read simple English. Resolution 242 is quite clear about the need for Israel to remove all its troops from the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Yes I have questions:

View attachment 106376
​

• Is the Resolution Binding?
• Did the Resolution as "ALL" forces?
• Did it say "ALL" territory occupied?
​

You will notice that in 1(ii) it does specific "ALL" --- as in "ALL claims or states of belligerency."

You are making assumptions not substantiated by the facts.

One big assumption is that you assume the purpose of the Resolution is that the Arab League Forces and participating nation would be allowed to replay the down without any penalty for provoking the flash conflict. The Arab League was caught by surprise when, after being decisively defeated, that they were not just given back territory lost.

In fact, even today, while:

• Israel and Egypt are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish back the Military Governorship of Gaza. Even if the Israelis were to withdraw from Gaza, which it has, it should have been placed under Egyptian Military Rule as it was when it was originally occupied by the Israelis.
• Israel and Jordan are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish the territory back to sovereign Jordanian control.
​

The reason is quite simple, the Arab League has come to realize that the West Bank and Gaza Strip represent and parasitic and economic albatross; as well as a internal security threat.

• ≈ 70% of the refugees living in UNRWA camps owned their own homes,
• Those who didn’t own their own homes:

• Pay no rent,
• Pay no municipal taxes,
• Pay no for no utilities

Free access to water and sanitation services.
​

There is a lot more to the issue that is normally considered. It is like an iceberg, four-fifths below the surface.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure it is. It's simpler to read than your posts. Sorry.

Then why do you add words that are not in the original document, it does not say all the territories or all the forces as you claim. In fact where does it mention palestine at all in 242 seeing as it did not exist until 20 years later

 

[Phoenall]

Hilarious. Love the clown dancing. But let's humor the clown.

1. Even if clown dancers claim, erroneously, that Res. 242 in and of itself is not binding, it is rendered definitively binding by Resolution 338, to wit:

"2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;"

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7FB7C26FCBE80A31852560C50065F878

2. It did not need to state "all forces". By stating "armed forces" it requires Israel to remove forces that are armed from the territory it occupied.

3. It did not need to state "all territory occupied". Territory occupied means territory occupied, not some or part of the territory occupied.

Furthermore, in both cases, the official French translation provided to the French speaking members of the UNSC makes it clear what the intent was. The Zionist attempts at claiming that "des" is there for grammatical reasons is ridiculous. If translated to mean less than all the territory or less than all the armed forces words such as "certains", "quelques-uns/unes, etc. would prefaces the words "forces armées" and "territoires".

1. Affirme que l'accomplissement des principes de la Charte exige l'instauration d'une paix juste et durable au Proche-Orient qui devrait comprendre l'application des deux principes suivants :
a. Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés au cours du récent conflit ; 12

And that was not the official UN version was it, once again you clutch at straws. The official version was written in English and the authors stated that they left out the word "the" deliberately. You cant go against a source document that tells it as it is and explains why things were done that way.


YOU LOSE AGAIN

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Well, Yes you can read simple English; but, this is not simple English.

I can read simple English. Resolution 242 is quite clear about the need for Israel to remove all its troops from the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Yes I have questions:

View attachment 106376
​

• Is the Resolution Binding?
• Did the Resolution as "ALL" forces?
• Did it say "ALL" territory occupied?
​

You will notice that in 1(ii) it does specific "ALL" --- as in "ALL claims or states of belligerency."

You are making assumptions not substantiated by the facts.

One big assumption is that you assume the purpose of the Resolution is that the Arab League Forces and participating nation would be allowed to replay the down without any penalty for provoking the flash conflict. The Arab League was caught by surprise when, after being decisively defeated, that they were not just given back territory lost.

In fact, even today, while:

• Israel and Egypt are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish back the Military Governorship of Gaza. Even if the Israelis were to withdraw from Gaza, which it has, it should have been placed under Egyptian Military Rule as it was when it was originally occupied by the Israelis.
• Israel and Jordan are at peace, the treaty does not relinquish the territory back to sovereign Jordanian control.
​

The reason is quite simple, the Arab League has come to realize that the West Bank and Gaza Strip represent and parasitic and economic albatross; as well as a internal security threat.

• ≈ 70% of the refugees living in UNRWA camps owned their own homes,
• Those who didn’t own their own homes:

• Pay no rent,
• Pay no municipal taxes,
• Pay no for no utilities

Free access to water and sanitation services.
​

There is a lot more to the issue that is normally considered. It is like an iceberg, four-fifths below the surface.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure it is. It's simpler to read than your posts. Sorry.

(COMMENT)

Did you answer the questions?
• Is the Resolution Binding?
• Did the Resolution say "ALL" forces?
• Did it say "ALL" territory occupied?

Most Respectfully,
R

Resolution 242 is not binding. -- The Israelis can and do ignore the Resolution.
It did not say "ALL" forces. -- The Israelis can remove a jeep and two soldiers and maintain that they are true to the letter of the Resolution.
It did not say "ALL" territory. -- The Israelis can similarly let Palestinians live on more than an acre of desert and claim that they are being magnanimous.

And they dont need to do anything as 242 does not apply to palestine, it did not exist until 20+ years after 242 was written