Israeli soldiers are killing themselves

[montelatici]

All the crazy attempts to deny what Resolution 242 says are hilarious, it simply says:

"i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch3.pdf

It is what it says and what the members UNSC agreed to.

 

[Shusha]

Israel has indeed withdrawn armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict. So, done. Satisfied.

 

[montelatici]

Perhaps you should advise the UN.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

So, your position is that you know more than the people that wrote it.

All the crazy attempts to deny what Resolution 242 says are hilarious, it simply says:

"i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch3.pdf

It is what it says and what the members UNSC agreed to.

(COMMENT)

That is interestingly naive. Political people and lawyers use language. As explained by the drafters of the Resolution, noted in Posting #60, it is written that way for a reason.

But, like you say, you know better... It makes us wonder what else you know...
You also might want to review:

Ask DAG

Are UN resolutions binding?
Last Updated Jan 09 2017, 11:20am
​

• ANSWER: In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter.

MY CMT: S/RES/242 was taken "in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter," Third clause in Preamble.

This year, the UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) will turn a 50 years old. And in that half century, no one has seriously challenged the remarks documented for the record by the authors of the Resolution. You would think by now, that if the authors were wrong, someone (or some body) in an official capacity would have said so.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Why should the UN, who continues to exhort Israel to remove itself from the territory it occupied, challenge the silly remarks? The UNSC members voted on this:

"i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

Smoke and mirrors don't change the facts or the simple understanding of the English language.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Just because you do not understand the nature of political language and statecraft does not mean it does not exist and is not in use.

Why should the UN, who continues to exhort Israel to remove itself from the territory it occupied, challenge the silly remarks? The UNSC members voted on this:

"i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

Smoke and mirrors don't change the facts or the simple understanding of the English language.

(COMMENT)

Whatever your limitations are in the application, and however much you want to believe it says something in meaning, which id does not, I am simply not making it up.

I don't care that you don't believe the authors. I don't care about your limited understand of political slight of hand and the magic of statecraft. I just prefer that the other members of the discussion group might understand that what YOU think it says is not what it actually says. You read the words, but don't comprehend.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The authors have no standing, the voting members of the UNSC do. The English meaning of the words has. That's what the UNSC voted on. It is you that cannot understand simple English:

"i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

Just shut up you moronic idiot. Do you think the UN would have issued subsequent resolutions if the idiot interpretations were reasonable?

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

Ah, that is a just one of several questions.

I suggest that young Israelis would be subject to less pressure were the IDF to return to behind the 1967 border which they have been instructed to do according to international law.

(COMMENT)

Just which "International Law" actually says that?

• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.

J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:​

On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank; known by the Hashemite Kingdom as the "Disengagement from the West Bank." Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. What governmental authroty was in place on 1 August 1988.

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?

There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements

• (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius)
• (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Finally, ther is the question of the Oslo Accords and the 1994 Treaty with Jordan that finally end the War of Independence with Jordan. In that Treaty, the International Boundary is stipulated in Article 3 - International Boundary.

It is not so easy to just say --- in accordance with International Law. You cannot use UNSC Resolution 242 (according to the authors), you cannot ignore the Jordanian territorial abandonment, and you cannot ignore the written word between Israel (the Occupation Power) and Jordan (the Sovereign Power) by Treaty.

If it was just one single piece of evidence that was questionable, that would be different. But in this case, you have four pieces of evidence.

• Testimony by the Authors.
• Jordanian abandonment
• Oslo Accords
• Treaty outline of International Boundary
​

What does the anti-semitic side have.

Remember that the act to make such law as to deny the Jewish State of Israel such rights as to jeopardize the safety of the sovereignty of the people and the nation is essentially word and puts Israel in a position to defend itself. The generation of a mask to obscure, under the color of law, the true reason for the lack of protection (Jewish minority 'vs' the overwhelming numbers in the Arab League) and to give the appearance that there is some basis in law to put the Jewish People and nation at risk is pure subterfuge of the first order in magnitude. It becomes a means to extort territory from the Israelis at the risk of regional security.

Most Respectfully,
R

UN Security Council Resolution 242:
"1. 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 acknowledgment 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 ..."

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

I understand that your highlight in "red" is what you think you understand. And I understand that the Arab Palestinians have convinced themselves that it means something that it doesn't.

Eloy, et al,

Ah, that is a just one of several questions.

I suggest that young Israelis would be subject to less pressure were the IDF to return to behind the 1967 border which they have been instructed to do according to international law.

(COMMENT)

Just which "International Law" actually says that?

• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.

J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:​

On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank; known by the Hashemite Kingdom as the "Disengagement from the West Bank." Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. What governmental authroty was in place on 1 August 1988.

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?

There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements

• (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius)
• (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Finally, ther is the question of the Oslo Accords and the 1994 Treaty with Jordan that finally end the War of Independence with Jordan. In that Treaty, the International Boundary is stipulated in Article 3 - International Boundary.

It is not so easy to just say --- in accordance with International Law. You cannot use UNSC Resolution 242 (according to the authors), you cannot ignore the Jordanian territorial abandonment, and you cannot ignore the written word between Israel (the Occupation Power) and Jordan (the Sovereign Power) by Treaty.

If it was just one single piece of evidence that was questionable, that would be different. But in this case, you have four pieces of evidence.

• Testimony by the Authors.
• Jordanian abandonment
• Oslo Accords
• Treaty outline of International Boundary
​

What does the anti-semitic side have.

Remember that the act to make such law as to deny the Jewish State of Israel such rights as to jeopardize the safety of the sovereignty of the people and the nation is essentially word and puts Israel in a position to defend itself. The generation of a mask to obscure, under the color of law, the true reason for the lack of protection (Jewish minority 'vs' the overwhelming numbers in the Arab League) and to give the appearance that there is some basis in law to put the Jewish People and nation at risk is pure subterfuge of the first order in magnitude. It becomes a means to extort territory from the Israelis at the risk of regional security.

Most Respectfully,
R

UN Security Council Resolution 242:
"1. 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 acknowledgment 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 ..."

(COMMENT)

But as the Posting says above, the question is:

•• Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no!
​

It might be nice if you actually took the time to read what the authors said; and why a half century later, Resolution 242 had no impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

I understand that your highlight in "red" is what you think you understand. And I understand that the Arab Palestinians have convinced themselves that it means something that it doesn't.

Eloy, et al,

Ah, that is a just one of several questions.

I suggest that young Israelis would be subject to less pressure were the IDF to return to behind the 1967 border which they have been instructed to do according to international law.

(COMMENT)

Just which "International Law" actually says that?

• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.

J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:​

On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank; known by the Hashemite Kingdom as the "Disengagement from the West Bank." Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. What governmental authroty was in place on 1 August 1988.

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?

There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements

• (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius)
• (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Finally, ther is the question of the Oslo Accords and the 1994 Treaty with Jordan that finally end the War of Independence with Jordan. In that Treaty, the International Boundary is stipulated in Article 3 - International Boundary.

It is not so easy to just say --- in accordance with International Law. You cannot use UNSC Resolution 242 (according to the authors), you cannot ignore the Jordanian territorial abandonment, and you cannot ignore the written word between Israel (the Occupation Power) and Jordan (the Sovereign Power) by Treaty.

If it was just one single piece of evidence that was questionable, that would be different. But in this case, you have four pieces of evidence.

• Testimony by the Authors.
• Jordanian abandonment
• Oslo Accords
• Treaty outline of International Boundary
​

What does the anti-semitic side have.

Remember that the act to make such law as to deny the Jewish State of Israel such rights as to jeopardize the safety of the sovereignty of the people and the nation is essentially word and puts Israel in a position to defend itself. The generation of a mask to obscure, under the color of law, the true reason for the lack of protection (Jewish minority 'vs' the overwhelming numbers in the Arab League) and to give the appearance that there is some basis in law to put the Jewish People and nation at risk is pure subterfuge of the first order in magnitude. It becomes a means to extort territory from the Israelis at the risk of regional security.

Most Respectfully,
R

UN Security Council Resolution 242:
"1. 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 acknowledgment 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 ..."

(COMMENT)

But as the Posting says above, the question is:

•• Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no!
​

It might be nice if you actually took the time to read what the authors said; and why a half century later, Resolution 242 had no impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

 

[ding]

Eloy, et al,

I understand that your highlight in "red" is what you think you understand. And I understand that the Arab Palestinians have convinced themselves that it means something that it doesn't.

Eloy, et al,

Ah, that is a just one of several questions.

I suggest that young Israelis would be subject to less pressure were the IDF to return to behind the 1967 border which they have been instructed to do according to international law.

(COMMENT)

Just which "International Law" actually says that?

• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.

J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:​

On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank; known by the Hashemite Kingdom as the "Disengagement from the West Bank." Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. What governmental authroty was in place on 1 August 1988.

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?

There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements

• (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius)
• (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Finally, ther is the question of the Oslo Accords and the 1994 Treaty with Jordan that finally end the War of Independence with Jordan. In that Treaty, the International Boundary is stipulated in Article 3 - International Boundary.

It is not so easy to just say --- in accordance with International Law. You cannot use UNSC Resolution 242 (according to the authors), you cannot ignore the Jordanian territorial abandonment, and you cannot ignore the written word between Israel (the Occupation Power) and Jordan (the Sovereign Power) by Treaty.

If it was just one single piece of evidence that was questionable, that would be different. But in this case, you have four pieces of evidence.

• Testimony by the Authors.
• Jordanian abandonment
• Oslo Accords
• Treaty outline of International Boundary
​

What does the anti-semitic side have.

Remember that the act to make such law as to deny the Jewish State of Israel such rights as to jeopardize the safety of the sovereignty of the people and the nation is essentially word and puts Israel in a position to defend itself. The generation of a mask to obscure, under the color of law, the true reason for the lack of protection (Jewish minority 'vs' the overwhelming numbers in the Arab League) and to give the appearance that there is some basis in law to put the Jewish People and nation at risk is pure subterfuge of the first order in magnitude. It becomes a means to extort territory from the Israelis at the risk of regional security.

Most Respectfully,
R

UN Security Council Resolution 242:
"1. 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 acknowledgment 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 ..."

(COMMENT)

But as the Posting says above, the question is:

•• Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no!
​

It might be nice if you actually took the time to read what the authors said; and why a half century later, Resolution 242 had no impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

You need to check your reading comprehension.

 

[Phoenall]

I had a 19-year-old cousin who was found dead a few months after being drafted into the IDF. Most likely it was a suicide, but my devastated uncle and aunt would not allow a formal investigation. The thing is that in Israel people look at you cross-eyed if you never did the Army. Additionally, besides being looked upon as weird, many career opportunities are lost to you. Therefore, not only did my uncle and aunt not try to prevent him from being drafted, although it was clear beforehand that he had major issues, but they actually did all they could to insure he was drafted. They hoped it would "make a man out of him." But he was a delicate boy and there was one drill sargeant who was especially harsh with him. I believe rylah once commented here that he was put in jail for refusing to join the IDF. That is also a consideration in Israel. rylah was very brave in that regard.

It saddened me to read of your cousin's death. Some people are sensitive and they are better because of it. They act as a reminder to the rest of us if what constitutes human values.
Being conscripted for military service in Israel must be a nightmare for anyone who does not share the societal expectations and approval of the brutal policies enforced by the occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
I believe a rethink is needed by the Israeli people about what they want Israel to represent in today's world for themselves and their neighbors.

Again let me explain the situation a bit clearer.
In Israel there're 2 was to serve the country- either through a) IDF or b) Civil Service.

In the 1st option there're many possibilities of employment.
However the 2nd option gives You the ability to serve in the Ambulance or work in any of the available organizations.
You would be SHOCKED to see the most pro- Palestinian NGO's on the list of option b). Organizations like Bet'selem and other 'Israeli sympathizers'.

I think there's a full list somewhere, of NGO's that people can serve in instead of IDF, and many do.
Otherwise where do You think anti-semites take their info from?
Exactly from such organizations that reside and work in Israel, financed by the Israeli taxpayer and foreign support (PA, EU, US, Qatar).

I was unaware that the requirement to serve in the Israeli military could be dropped should someone prefer to serve in Bet'selem and other NGOs. I am supposing then that service in an NGO will gain the same privileges afterwards as a demobilized soldier. I am also supposing that a good deal of pro-IDF propaganda is given to children in secondary school in order to encourage participation as something patriotic and an expected norm of society.

As for the IDF propaganda, again by calling it propaganda it doesn't turn the same old tradition of triggering the young generation to want to serve in the army. It occurs in Your country as well as in the US, UK, Russia, China and any modern state. This is actually the essence of govt- to protect its' people.

We see the same Hollywood movies and have the same open Internet.
And again instead of IDF one can serve in some pro Palestinian NGO, what more that that do You need to have a freedom to think and act?

Of the 28 European Union states only 5 have conscription and visits of military to schools is the exception. In fact, there is an outreach to schools by anti-military groups in several EU countries.
Mandatory military service in Europe - SWI swissinfo.ch
Counter-Recruitment and the Campaign to Demilitarize Public Schools
It is altogether different from the programming of Israeli students by the IDF.

WRONG as it is just a recruitment drive because so few are now electing to go for military service. If the US had the draft again then You would see the same thing in US schools.

 

[Phoenall]

Again let me explain the situation a bit clearer.
In Israel there're 2 was to serve the country- either through a) IDF or b) Civil Service.

In the 1st option there're many possibilities of employment.
However the 2nd option gives You the ability to serve in the Ambulance or work in any of the available organizations.
You would be SHOCKED to see the most pro- Palestinian NGO's on the list of option b). Organizations like Bet'selem and other 'Israeli sympathizers'.

I think there's a full list somewhere, of NGO's that people can serve in instead of IDF, and many do.
Otherwise where do You think anti-semites take their info from?
Exactly from such organizations that reside and work in Israel, financed by the Israeli taxpayer and foreign support (PA, EU, US, Qatar).

I was unaware that the requirement to serve in the Israeli military could be dropped should someone prefer to serve in Bet'selem and other NGOs. I am supposing then that service in an NGO will gain the same privileges afterwards as a demobilized soldier. I am also supposing that a good deal of pro-IDF propaganda is given to children in secondary school in order to encourage participation as something patriotic and an expected norm of society.

The privileges are different of course. A soldier to be can acquire a technical degree with certain relevant privileges before enlisting and use the experience in the army to continue in the h-tech industry, security, defense, govt, medicine.... or whatever he wishes to do well.

On the other hand , a civil servant can study political sciences, medicine, journalism, accounting...You see where I'm going.

In other words, one wouldn't expect a civil servant to work well in the military complex as well as an engineer to go organize demonstrations or work in an ambulance.

As for discrimination, it really depends on the person as in any issue.
Anyway the civil worker, the soldier and the one who didn't serve at all- they all can find a boss if they're willing to put the effort. Or develop a business.

At the end of the day Israelis are practical people, it's called a "startup nation" for a reason- Israeli young generation has a wide variety of options and tools to succeed.

Although your post is informative, I fear you have strayed from the topic of the OP which is suicide among IDF soldiers.

So what do You suggest, we open all borders and send soldiers home because someone there is waving a slogan of "brutal occupation"?

I suggest that young Israelis would be subject to less pressure were the IDF to return to behind the 1967 border which they have been instructed to do according to international law.

What 67 borders are those, as I cant find ant treaties detailing 67 borders. By the way you do realise that there are two ceasefire lines in 1967 dont you ?

What international law is that then, as UN resolutions are not laws.

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

I understand that your highlight in "red" is what you think you understand. And I understand that the Arab Palestinians have convinced themselves that it means something that it doesn't.

Eloy, et al,

Ah, that is a just one of several questions.

I suggest that young Israelis would be subject to less pressure were the IDF to return to behind the 1967 border which they have been instructed to do according to international law.

(COMMENT)

Just which "International Law" actually says that?

• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.

J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:​

On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank; known by the Hashemite Kingdom as the "Disengagement from the West Bank." Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. What governmental authroty was in place on 1 August 1988.

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?

There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements

• (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius)
• (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Finally, ther is the question of the Oslo Accords and the 1994 Treaty with Jordan that finally end the War of Independence with Jordan. In that Treaty, the International Boundary is stipulated in Article 3 - International Boundary.

It is not so easy to just say --- in accordance with International Law. You cannot use UNSC Resolution 242 (according to the authors), you cannot ignore the Jordanian territorial abandonment, and you cannot ignore the written word between Israel (the Occupation Power) and Jordan (the Sovereign Power) by Treaty.

If it was just one single piece of evidence that was questionable, that would be different. But in this case, you have four pieces of evidence.

• Testimony by the Authors.
• Jordanian abandonment
• Oslo Accords
• Treaty outline of International Boundary
​

What does the anti-semitic side have.

Remember that the act to make such law as to deny the Jewish State of Israel such rights as to jeopardize the safety of the sovereignty of the people and the nation is essentially word and puts Israel in a position to defend itself. The generation of a mask to obscure, under the color of law, the true reason for the lack of protection (Jewish minority 'vs' the overwhelming numbers in the Arab League) and to give the appearance that there is some basis in law to put the Jewish People and nation at risk is pure subterfuge of the first order in magnitude. It becomes a means to extort territory from the Israelis at the risk of regional security.

Most Respectfully,
R

UN Security Council Resolution 242:
"1. 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 acknowledgment 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 ..."

(COMMENT)

But as the Posting says above, the question is:

•• Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no!
​

It might be nice if you actually took the time to read what the authors said; and why a half century later, Resolution 242 had no impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

Then you will have no problem in copying the section of 242 that actually says this, even the authors of 242 say that you are a liar as it does not say this at all. The word "the" is deliberately left out for this very reason and was agreed unanimously by the UN

 

[Phoenall]

All the crazy attempts to deny what Resolution 242 says are hilarious, it simply says:

"i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch3.pdf

It is what it says and what the members UNSC agreed to.

It does not say all, it does not say the it just says from territories occupied which could mean as little as one village or as much as the whole of the world

All the crazy attempts to deny what Resolution 242 says are hilarious, it simply says:

"i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch3.pdf

It is what it says and what the members UNSC agreed to.

What the member states agreed to unanimously is different to what you read as shown by this

Understanding UN Security Council Resolution 242

Resolution 242 in no way called on Israel to withdraw to the lines of June 4, 1967, before the outbreak of the Six-Day War.


It is important to stress that Resolution 242 in no way called on Israel to withdraw to the lines of June 4, 1967, before the outbreak of the Six-Day War. Arab diplomats have tried to argue nonetheless that the resolution precludes any territorial modifications since the resolution’s preamble refers to the international principle that the annexation of territory by force is illegal. True, the preamble specifically refers to “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Yet this principle was placed by the drafters of Resolution 242 in the preamble and not in the operative paragraphs below. There is a ruling of the International Court of Justice (from the dispute over Danzig) that preambles of League of Nations resolutions are not binding – only the operative parts of these resolutions can create legal responsibilities. This determination carried over from the era of the League of Nations to that of the United Nations.

 

[Phoenall]

Why should the UN, who continues to exhort Israel to remove itself from the territory it occupied, challenge the silly remarks? The UNSC members voted on this:

"i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

Smoke and mirrors don't change the facts or the simple understanding of the English language.

Correct and I would advise you to get a remedial course on English comprehension

 

[Phoenall]

The authors have no standing, the voting members of the UNSC do. The English meaning of the words has. That's what the UNSC voted on. It is you that cannot understand simple English:

"i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

Just shut up you moronic idiot. Do you think the UN would have issued subsequent resolutions if the idiot interpretations were reasonable?

Once again you are shown to be out of your league so resort to immature name calling and lies to try and hide your loss of face

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Ah, that is a just one of several questions.

I suggest that young Israelis would be subject to less pressure were the IDF to return to behind the 1967 border which they have been instructed to do according to international law.

(COMMENT)

Just which "International Law" actually says that?

• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.

J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:​

On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank; known by the Hashemite Kingdom as the "Disengagement from the West Bank." Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. What governmental authroty was in place on 1 August 1988.

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?

There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements

• (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius)
• (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Finally, ther is the question of the Oslo Accords and the 1994 Treaty with Jordan that finally end the War of Independence with Jordan. In that Treaty, the International Boundary is stipulated in Article 3 - International Boundary.

It is not so easy to just say --- in accordance with International Law. You cannot use UNSC Resolution 242 (according to the authors), you cannot ignore the Jordanian territorial abandonment, and you cannot ignore the written word between Israel (the Occupation Power) and Jordan (the Sovereign Power) by Treaty.

If it was just one single piece of evidence that was questionable, that would be different. But in this case, you have four pieces of evidence.

• Testimony by the Authors.
• Jordanian abandonment
• Oslo Accords
• Treaty outline of International Boundary
​

What does the anti-semitic side have.

Remember that the act to make such law as to deny the Jewish State of Israel such rights as to jeopardize the safety of the sovereignty of the people and the nation is essentially word and puts Israel in a position to defend itself. The generation of a mask to obscure, under the color of law, the true reason for the lack of protection (Jewish minority 'vs' the overwhelming numbers in the Arab League) and to give the appearance that there is some basis in law to put the Jewish People and nation at risk is pure subterfuge of the first order in magnitude. It becomes a means to extort territory from the Israelis at the risk of regional security.

Most Respectfully,
R

UN Security Council Resolution 242:
"1. 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 acknowledgment 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 ..."

So when are the arab muslims going to abide by the part that applies to them ?


Note it does not say "all" or "the" when mentioning territories, care to tell the board what territories are meant by the authors ?

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

I understand that your highlight in "red" is what you think you understand. And I understand that the Arab Palestinians have convinced themselves that it means something that it doesn't.

Eloy, et al,

Ah, that is a just one of several questions.

I suggest that young Israelis would be subject to less pressure were the IDF to return to behind the 1967 border which they have been instructed to do according to international law.

(COMMENT)

Just which "International Law" actually says that?

• Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.

Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.

J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:​

On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank; known by the Hashemite Kingdom as the "Disengagement from the West Bank." Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. What governmental authroty was in place on 1 August 1988.

Q What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?

There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements

• (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius)
• (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.

Finally, ther is the question of the Oslo Accords and the 1994 Treaty with Jordan that finally end the War of Independence with Jordan. In that Treaty, the International Boundary is stipulated in Article 3 - International Boundary.

It is not so easy to just say --- in accordance with International Law. You cannot use UNSC Resolution 242 (according to the authors), you cannot ignore the Jordanian territorial abandonment, and you cannot ignore the written word between Israel (the Occupation Power) and Jordan (the Sovereign Power) by Treaty.

If it was just one single piece of evidence that was questionable, that would be different. But in this case, you have four pieces of evidence.

• Testimony by the Authors.
• Jordanian abandonment
• Oslo Accords
• Treaty outline of International Boundary
​

What does the anti-semitic side have.

Remember that the act to make such law as to deny the Jewish State of Israel such rights as to jeopardize the safety of the sovereignty of the people and the nation is essentially word and puts Israel in a position to defend itself. The generation of a mask to obscure, under the color of law, the true reason for the lack of protection (Jewish minority 'vs' the overwhelming numbers in the Arab League) and to give the appearance that there is some basis in law to put the Jewish People and nation at risk is pure subterfuge of the first order in magnitude. It becomes a means to extort territory from the Israelis at the risk of regional security.

Most Respectfully,
R

UN Security Council Resolution 242:
"1. 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 acknowledgment 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 ..."

(COMMENT)

But as the Posting says above, the question is:

•• Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no!
​

It might be nice if you actually took the time to read what the authors said; and why a half century later, Resolution 242 had no impact.

Most Respectfully,
R

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

That clear that you put a completely different definition on it to what the authors did in 1967

 

[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:

​

• Is the Resolution Binding?
• Did the Resolution say "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