Resolution 242: It does NOT mean withdrawal to 1967 lines

[abu afak]

Hey abu afak , did you delete that post? I was just getting ready to rip it to shreds...
...starting with this...

And while I document my claims re 242 throughout this string, I challenged MANY of your Empty trite anti-Israel slanders, you have Not documented.
Instead you post a new map... Proving what?
That In their 1948 attempt to wipe out Israel and Jews Off the map, Arabs lost Land.
OMG!

What the hell. Sure 'you can't lose land in a war' so why not try wiping out another country/people!?!
According to you.. No penalty.
Free shots!
Do over!
No loss situation. Back to go.
That's why the principle is actually aimed at Offensive war NOT land won in defensive war.
That's WHY the framers of 242 designed IN a buffer/Incomplete withdrawal in Israel's favor: To avoid more freebies/make Israel more defensible.
See buddy, ONE of us understands the coherent sequence: me.

...and ending with this....

However, if you deleted that post, then consider this one rhetorical (requiring no answer).

I deleted it only to later post over an Idiotic Trolling/bury attempt by Kondor3.
The Same Kondor3 who was trying to say 242 and 1967 is irrelevant/Toilet paper, while Himself posting four 1947 Maps in another string. (bogus btw)
AS IF 20 years earlier IS more relevant.
Clownish hypocrite.

In the meantime, I Already more than addressed your map with my own string/several maps Documenting in MUCH More detail what happened leading up to and through the partition with my Link/OP:
AGAIN and UNAddressed by your single/simpleton map.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/israel-and-palestine/105824-myth-1-israel-is-stolen-land.html
Feel free to debate that history as well. (this is mainly about 242)

And note That is My knowledge merely using generic maps links to illustrate the history I know cold and you know NOT.

And Finally.. er.. primarily, you have LOST the debate on Res 242, Not addressing my many posts and retorts at all except for empty denial and posting 'Unispal' (which is merely Palestinian claim) as some sort of Nonsensical reply to my posting of virtually Every important Framer/Creater OF that resolution.
-
-

 

[Billo_Really]

And while I document my claims re 242 throughout this string, I challenged MANY of your Empty trite anti-Israel slanders, you have Not documented.

Why would I document my claims after you removed your post and I had nothing to respond to?

Instead you post a new map... Proving what?

That was the original map of the Partition plan showing the final borders of Jewish-Palestine and Arab-Palestine, which clearly shows the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem was not intended to be Israeli territory and it never will be Israeli territory. And after a half-century of every nation on planet earth not recognizing that as Israeli territory, you would think you'd catch the clue, that land isn't yours and it never will be yours.

That In their 1948 attempt to wipe out Israel and Jews Off the map, Arabs lost Land.
OMG!

The arabs went in to protect the inalienable rights of indigenous arabs that should of been protected by the British, but they vacated the area.

What the hell. Sure 'you can't lose land in a war' so why not try wiping out another country/people!?!

You talk about there being "no Palestinian people", that they're an "invented people", you refuse to acknowledge their historical connections to that area and you drove out over 700,000 of them via jewish terrorism and then you have the gall to claim they're trying to wipe you out?

That's pretty fuckin' whack!

According to you.. No penalty.
Free shots!
Do over!
No loss situation. Back to go.

What the hell does that mean? That's just empty rhetoric.

That's why the principle is actually aimed at Offensive war NOT land won in defensive war.

It's neither. This is not a war. It's an occupation. An illegal and immoral one.

That's WHY the framers of 242 designed IN a buffer/Incomplete withdrawal in Israel's favor: To avoid more freebies/make Israel more defensible.

They did no such thing. They told Israel to withdraw their military from the territories they occupied.

See buddy, ONE of us understands the coherent sequence: me.

You just have no clue as to what constitutes an occupation and Israel's obligation under such.

I deleted it only to later post over an Idiotic Trolling/bury attempt by Kondor3.

Kondor3 and I have our differences and I don't care for many of the things he say's, but he's definately not a "troll".

The Same Kondor3 who was trying to say 242 and 1967 is irrelevant/Toilet paper, while Himself posting four 1947 Maps in another string. (bogus btw)

Well, let's not concern ourselves with Kondor3, he can handle his own debates; you're talking to me now and I need you to stay focused and on topic.

Que pasa, mutha?

In the meantime, I Already more than addressed your map with my own string/several maps Documenting in MUCH More detail what happened leading up to and through the partition with my Link/OP:

That's just smoke and mirrors on your part. You think if you do a large enough data dump that will change the basic fact that you cannot acquire land by force. That has been illegal ever since the end of WWII and nothing is going to change now because Zionists are too selfish to share.

And note That is My knowledge merely using generic maps links to illustrate the history I know cold and you know NOT.

I know, you don't know, as much as you claim you know. I know that!

And Finally.. er.. primarily, you have LOST the debate on Res 242, Not addressing my many posts and retorts at all except for empty denial and posting 'Unispal' (which is merely Palestinian claim) as some sort of Nonsensical reply to my posting of virtually Every important Framer/Creater OF that resolution.
-
-

Ad hominem's are not valid rebuttals.

 

[RoccoR]

abu afak, Billo_Really, et al,

In a very practical and real sense, the UN Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242 22 November 1967) has been overtaken by events [w/UN Map 3243 (06/97)]. Since that time, there has been one major sneak attack Arab Forces (Yom Kippur War - October 1973), the Palestinian Insurgency in South Lebanon (1971-1982), the Lebanese War (1982), South Lebanon al-Bekka Valley (1982–2000), the First Intifada (1987–1993), the Second Intifada (2000–2005), the Lebanon War (summer 2006), the Gaza Escalation (December 2008 - January 2009) culmination in Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012). But also, there has been the establishment of Peace Treaties; first with Arab Republic of Egypt 26 March 1979 - and second with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994 (A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995). If we look at more contemporary interpretations on the status of the Occupied Territories (OpT), we can observe in the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 May 2004, A/RES/58/292 - Status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, a calm sense that the status was "one of military occupation" and that:

• Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory;
• Israel, the occupying Power, has only the duties and obligations of an occupying Power under the Geneva Convention;
• Expresses its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people;
• Attainment of a just and comprehensive negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East resulting in two viable, sovereign and independent States, Israel and Palestine;
• Such a negotiated peace settlement should be based on the pre-1967 borders and living side by side in peace and security.

And again, if we look at the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 29 November 2012, A/RES/67/19 - Status of Palestine in the United Nations, we see much the same thing. And yet, again, in the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 2012, A/RES/67/158 - The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, the same thing. Whether we look at paragraph 1ii of S/RES/242 22 November 1967 or affirmation paragraph in A/RES/67/158 26 February 2013 ---> the common theme between them all is the need to "to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders."

Remember the common theme - the question becomes would the withdrawal of the Occupation Force and settlements lead any reasonable and prudent man to believe it would achieve the goal behind this common theme? ["(T)o live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders."] This would mean that there would be no further terrorist attacks or armed incursions by Hostile Palestinians which would threaten --- in any way --- the sovereign integrity of the State of Israel and the security of its people and their holdings.

• If the answer is "YES," then one can make the assumption that the Occupation is strategy is flawed.
• If the answer is "NO," then one can assume that the recommendation/demand by the UN is flawed.

The use of the "pre-1967 borders" itself, as recommended/demanded by the UN, is problematic. It would, in fact alter the border agreements set by treaty; first with Arab Republic of Egypt 26 March 1979 - and second with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994 (A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995). The recommended/demanded by the UN, in near mindless support of the Hostile Arab Palestinian, has failed to take into consideration the events that precipitated between 1967 and today. Whether the world recognizes it or not, both the State of Israel and the 1988 State of Palestine have declared their Capitols in Jerusalem.

If it were as dramatically simple as to withdraw, and each party would live happily ever-after, it would have been done. There would have been no first war (1948) and there would have been no last war (1973). There would have no need for a solemn oath in 1948 by the Arabs to kill every last man, woman and child in Israel. There would have been no need for the PLO to establish guerrilla warfare elements in 1964-66 (before the 1967 occupation).

The occupation of the territories is not simply about those two little patches of land. It is about the struggle pursued by the Hostile Arab Palestinian since the time before the 1929 Riots and the emergence of the martyr Sheik Izz ad-din al-Qassam. Well today you often hear the claim that if the Israeli's would only withdraw, there would be no further attacks or terrorism. That was disproven when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza.

Again -- we come back to the question:

• Would the withdrawal of the Occupation Force and settlements lead any reasonable and prudent man to believe it would achieve the goal behind this common theme? ["(T)o live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders."] This would mean that there would be no further terrorist attacks or armed incursions by Hostile Palestinians which would threaten --- in any way --- the sovereign integrity of the State of Israel and the security of its people and their holdings.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...In a very practical and real sense, the UN Security Council Resolution 242 ... has been overtaken by events..."

Ergo, my tribute to toilet paper, in No. 79

"...What it means in the real world..."

I took the lowbrow visceral approach and you took the higher-end intellectual one, but they both convey the same message...

Irrelevancy, in a practical real-world sense.

As usual, you did a good job of documenting your reasons.

I took the 'Less is more' approach, which, by sheer chance, proved the warm-up to your own excellent exercise.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I deleted it only to later post over an Idiotic Trolling/bury attempt by Kondor3..."

Don't look now, my little butt-floss, but we're working the same side of the street.

The 'less-is-more' approach to the post was designed to viscerally posit that in the practical and real world, UNSCR 242 was as dead as Julius Caesar; irrelevant and un-enforceable and more to Israel's disadvantage than to its advantage, so as to render it a non-starter.

Just because you wanted to drone-on endlessly about 242 and got pissed when somebody cut the Gordian Knot and dared to speculate that it was meaningless in the real world - that angst is yours to deal with, not mine.

"...The Same Kondor3 who was trying to say 242 and 1967 is irrelevant/Toilet paper, while Himself posting four 1947 Maps in another string..."

The maps were used in a context designed to counterpoint pro-Palestinian claims that they will outbreed and overrun the Israelis, by showcasing the idea that they will be nudged off the remains of Rump Palestine by the time that can happen, and using their own (pro-Palestinian -produced) propaganda maps (clearly acknowledged as thus) to effect this showcasing...

"...Clownish hypocrite..."

Given that I was positing that 242 was largely irrelevant, in pursuit of advantage for Israel, and that I was using Palestinian propaganda maps to counterpoint their own hostile anti-Israeli speculation about demographics pressure, again, in pursuit of advantage for Israel, there is no hypocrisy at-work here whatsoever.

I suggest the next time you feel like shooting off your big mouth about somebody whom you've never dealt with before, you make sure you know which side he-or-she is on, and what the context is, before you make a jackass out of yourself - again.

 

[Billo_Really]

Would the withdrawal of the Occupation Force and settlements lead any reasonable and prudent man to believe it would achieve the goal behind this common theme?

In light of the fact that it is the "occupation" which is the cause of all the violence, a prudent man would answer "yes".

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Is it risk.

Would the withdrawal of the Occupation Force and settlements lead any reasonable and prudent man to believe it would achieve the goal behind this common theme?

In light of the fact that it is the "occupation" which is the cause of all the violence, a prudent man would answer "yes".

(COMMENT)

Something is wrong here.

The occupation did not occur until 1967, yet the attacks by Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) began many decades before that. I do not believe that HoAP will cease operations if the Israeli pulls back behind the wall/barriers.

But that is just my opinion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[abu afak]

"...I deleted it only to later post over an Idiotic Trolling/bury attempt by Kondor3..."

Don't look now, my little butt-floss, but we're working the same side of the street.

No, I post lot's of Meat, you tried to Troll it/them.
Your juevenile tactics outed.

The 'less-is-more' approach to the post was designed to viscerally posit that in the practical and real world, UNSCR 242 was as dead as Julius Caesar; irrelevant and un-enforceable and more to Israel's disadvantage than to its advantage, so as to render it a non-starter.
Just because you wanted to drone-on endlessly about 242 and got pissed when somebody cut the Gordian Knot and dared to speculate that it was meaningless in the real world - that angst is yours to deal with, not mine.
[SIZE="1" ]Given that I was positing that 242 was largely irrelevant, in pursuit of advantage for Israel, and that I was using Palestinian propaganda maps to counterpoint their own hostile anti-Israeli speculation about demographics pressure, again, in pursuit of advantage for Israel, there is no hypocrisy at-work here whatsoever.
I suggest the next time you feel like shooting off your big mouth about somebody whom you've never dealt with before, you make sure you know which side he-or-she is on, and what the context is, before you make a jackass out of yourself - again.[/IZE]

You know, your post is still BS even in attempted-importance-to-hide-inadequacy size 3 Fonts.
And I mean Complete BS.

Resolution 242 is the Only document Both sides 'agree' on as The Basis for Peace.
It is invoked Often even now.
In fact, bumped to the top again by me in direct Answer TO Brillo Squeally's Claim about it!
And I have done so/Had to do so SEVERAL times since the OP was posted despite spending very little time here in 7 years.

Indeed, Every President has used the same phrase in re a prospective agreement:
That is, 1967 borders are a 'basis' for peace but NOT exact borders.. ala 242.
That was even the Palestinian position for some time and will be again after Abbas sheds the Hamas baggage.
Land for Peace.

And I might add some simple history to fill in the G A P S in your and and Brillo Squeally history...
Israel offered to Return the 1967-conquered land in exchange for mere recognition.
Arabs refused (See 'Khartoum 3 nos' August 1967)
Only thus "Occupation".
(you guys are so factLess it's Funny)

This string IS about Resolution 242.
Deciding what's fair-and-just in an agreement DOES require knowing short history of the conflict.
242 was/Is still the single most important document in settling it.
One can only Laugh now at your attempting condescencion.. UP hill.
`

 

[P F Tinmore]

Billo_Really, et al,

Is it risk.

Would the withdrawal of the Occupation Force and settlements lead any reasonable and prudent man to believe it would achieve the goal behind this common theme?

In light of the fact that it is the "occupation" which is the cause of all the violence, a prudent man would answer "yes".

(COMMENT)

Something is wrong here.

The occupation did not occur until 1967, yet the attacks by Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) began many decades before that. I do not believe that HoAP will cease operations if the Israeli pulls back behind the wall/barriers.

But that is just my opinion.

Most Respectfully,
R

BTW, why were the Palestinians attacking Israel before 1967?

In Palestine Israel is regularly called 48 or 1948 land. Palestinians living in Israel are called 1948 Palestinians.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw89UDZay4M]Erakat caught on tape - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kondor3]

"...No, I post lot's of Meat, you tried to Troll it/them..."

Yep... 'bout what I figured...

Lots of angst over somebody cutting the Gordian Knot and saying that none of that shit matters very much anymore in connection with 242...

All that effort down the drain, eh?

Poor thing.

==============================

"Lighten-up, Francis..."

 

[docmauser1]

Who gives a shit what Israel needs for defensive purposes? You can't hold onto land seized in a war. Period. And 242 is telling them to get the fuck off that land. It doesn't matter whose land it is. It only matters that it isn't Israel's.

Drivel.