Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Phoenall]

J

Eloy

Your last post went off on so many tangents I can't be bothered to address it point by point. If there is anything specific you want to address, let me know. I will say though, that I fully support Palestinian nationalism and self-determination on part of the territory. Always have.

What I wrote was limited to addressing the errors of your previous post. Self-determination of the Palestinians in only part of occupied Palestine is not good enough.

Just as self determination on only part of the Jewish national home because illegal immigrants have stolen the land is also not good enough. So what is the solution ?

 

[Phoenall]

And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed.

OK, what percentage of Palestinian destroyed property was used for military purposes.

Do you have the stats on that or are you just shoveling shit?

No but I would say 100% have fallen under that criteria, and you need to read ALL the relevant Geneva conventions regarding what constitutes a military purpose to understand that meetting in an under ground car park of a hospital by leaders of hamas is enough to trigger the hospitals demolition, or firing a qassam from the overgrown corner of a school field is enough to carpet bomb the whole area. With modern technology it is easy enough to watch the launching of illegal weapons from gaza in real time, and the subsequent destruction of the area shortly after.

That is what I thought. You are just shoveling shit.

In other words you cant argue the point as you dont have a point to argue with. so you have a tantrum followed by a meltdown and throw out accusations

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this was really a special event.

You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?

October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm

No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza

(HUMOR)

"The activists put up a website carrying prepared “SOS messages” by those on board alleging they had been “kidnapped” by the IDF." BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF October 5, 2016

Sometimes you just have to laugh. This was really Some "kidnapping" --- they still let the 13 people aboard freedom to access mass media. But (after all) part of being a good activist is being a drama queen.

(COMMENT)

Mairead Maguire is really a delightful person --- but still an aging political activist that is trying to demonstrate that she is still relevant and capable of contributing to controversial causes. Famous for her activities ≈ 40 years ago, she is still out there taking her stand.

None the less, like other single intruders, the vessel she was on --- was brought into Port (Ashdod) like so many others; without incident.

I think this too was a test of sorts. Maguire is one of the last great "Olive Oyl" Activists from the Northern Ireland Conflict. (Priceless) It is very hard not to come to her rescue.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

This is simply NOT true. This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated (in the ways of politics and diplomacy) laymen.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

(COMMENT)

If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:

But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.

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.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

• MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

• Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ...

• Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?

A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...

​

While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:

• Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
• May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
• July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
• July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
• Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.

Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive. And it is still that way today. And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel). Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous. In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

Once again I repeat that the language of the resolution was deliberately left ambiguous. The fact that the Israelis might need to retain some territory for security reasons was taken into account by the drafters of the resolution. Therefore, some land swaps can be made in some future peace deal with the Arabs of the west Bank.

As for Syria and Lebanon, who should Israel give up the strategically important Golan Heights to? The Syrian Arab savages who are busy slaughtering each other? If that's what they do to each other, what might they do to the Jews, if given the chance!! Also, Israel officially withdrew from all of Lebanon. They only respond sometimes to cross-border raids from the terrorist Hezbollah group, who have already decimated all of Lebanon's Maronite Christians. Israel lives in a very rough neighborhood.

 

[MJB12741]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous. In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

Once again I repeat that the language of the resolution was deliberately left ambiguous. The fact that the Israelis might need to retain some territory for security reasons was taken into account by the drafters of the resolution. Therefore, some land swaps can be made in some future peace deal with the Arabs of the west Bank.

As for Syria and Lebanon, who should Israel give up the strategically important Golan Heights to? The Syrian Arab savages who are busy slaughtering each other? If that's what they do to each other, what might they do to the Jews, if given the chance!! Also, Israel officially withdrew from all of Lebanon. They only respond sometimes to cross-border raids from the terrorist Hezbollah group, who have already decimated all of Lebanon's Maronite Christians. Israel lives in a very rough neighborhood.

Israel is doing right by leaving Syria's situation to Syria to deal with.as long as Syrians are just killing each other & not Israeli's.

 

[montelatici]

Eloy, et al,

This is simply NOT true. This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated (in the ways of politics and diplomacy) laymen.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

(COMMENT)

If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:

But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.

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.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

• MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

• Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ...

• Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?

A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...

​

While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:

• Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
• May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
• July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
• July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
• Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.

Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive. And it is still that way today. And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel). Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:

First of all, this is nonsense even on its face: the resolution does not say Israel must withdraw from “the territories occupied” so we are to understand it to mean Israel must withdraw from only “some territories occupied”? Your self-defeating Zionist logic is prima facie nonsense.

In truth, the absence of the article has no effect on the meaning of the resolution inasmuch as the extent of withdraw is concerned. It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces “from territories occupied”, plural. The Syrian Golan Heights, the Egyptian Sinai, and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank are all “territories occupied” during the 1967 war and thus territories from which Israel was required to withdraw under the clear and unambiguous wording of Resolution 242.

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

As for sub-paragraph (ii), while it does call for the establishment of “secure and recognized borders”, it does not establish this as a precondition for the withdrawal of Israeli forces. It says “both” Israeli withdrawal and establishment of such borders are required, neither is conditioned on the other. It certainly was not the Security Council’s intent that a people whose land was occupied be required to negotiate with the occupier over where to draw the border.

You quote Caradon, a supporter of Israel, from years after the resolution’s passage. UN resolutions are not open to unilateral interpretation, but must be understand according to the will of the Security Council as a whole; and, second, the relevant documentary record for understanding the will of the Council is from prior to and up until the resolution’s adoption.

As stated, without the article "the" the breadth of the territories in question does not change at all, it is just the typical Zionist technique of trying to change fact.

And turning the documentary record, it is absolutely clear that the Security Council was explicit and unanimous that Resolution 242 required Israel to return to the lines it held prior to June 5, 1967.

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

This is simply NOT true. This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated (in the ways of politics and diplomacy) laymen.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

(COMMENT)

If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:

But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.

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.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

• MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

• Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ...

• Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?

A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...

​

While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:

• Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
• May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
• July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
• July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
• Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.

Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive. And it is still that way today. And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel). Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:

First of all, this is nonsense even on its face: the resolution does not say Israel must withdraw from “the territories occupied” so we are to understand it to mean Israel must withdraw from only “some territories occupied”? Your self-defeating Zionist logic is prima facie nonsense.

In truth, the absence of the article has no effect on the meaning of the resolution inasmuch as the extent of withdraw is concerned. It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces “from territories occupied”, plural. The Syrian Golan Heights, the Egyptian Sinai, and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank are all “territories occupied” during the 1967 war and thus territories from which Israel was required to withdraw under the clear and unambiguous wording of Resolution 242.

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

As for sub-paragraph (ii), while it does call for the establishment of “secure and recognized borders”, it does not establish this as a precondition for the withdrawal of Israeli forces. It says “both” Israeli withdrawal and establishment of such borders are required, neither is conditioned on the other. It certainly was not the Security Council’s intent that a people whose land was occupied be required to negotiate with the occupier over where to draw the border.

You quote Caradon, a supporter of Israel, from years after the resolution’s passage. UN resolutions are not open to unilateral interpretation, but must be understand according to the will of the Security Council as a whole; and, second, the relevant documentary record for understanding the will of the Council is from prior to and up until the resolution’s adoption.

As stated, without the article "the" the breadth of the territories in question does not change at all, it is just the typical Zionist technique of trying to change fact.

And turning the documentary record, it is absolutely clear that the Security Council was explicit and unanimous that Resolution 242 required Israel to return to the lines it held prior to June 5, 1967.

And monte the "know it all " steps in and proves yet again that he knows nothing, and knows it better than the people who wrote the resolution in the first place.
Can he explain why the authors say that they did not mean all the terrotories, but only those that would procure secure and defensible borders for all sides. Why palestine was never mentioned as one of the parties to the resolution

Now I come to the part that everyone will like MONTE YOU ARE A BARE FACED LIAR AS THERE IS NO SUB PARAGRAPH ii THAT SAYS THE ISRAELIS MUST LEAVE ALL THE TERRITORIES AND SECURE BORDERS CAN THEN BE NEGOTIATED. THEY ARE TWO SEPERATE ISSUES AND HAVE A POINT TO THEMSELVES.

Why not quote one of the authors for clarification, after all you quote people when they say things decades after they happened, and they were not even there.
So why has the UN stated that the omision was theirs deliberately so that just this state of affairs would not happen. They had much faith in neo nazi and islamocatholic following of convention even after seeing their denial first hand

WRONG as that is again spelt out by the authors as being islamonazi propaganda and 242 says no such thing


YOU SIR ARE A LIAR AND A PROPAGANDIST THAT WANTS TO SEE THE JEWS WIPED OUT AND THE MUSLIMS MADE MASTERS OF THE WHOLE WORLD

 

[Phoenall]

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967



UN resolution 242 in full from the UN archives



Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967


The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

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;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.

 

[P F Tinmore]

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?

 

[Hossfly]

It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.

Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."

Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.

Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.

As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.

I imagine that Eloy has never heard of the UN saying that anyone who was in the area for only two years can be considered a refugee. Being in an area for just two years doesn't make a grown person born there.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?

On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

 

[P F Tinmore]

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?

On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.

 

[Hollie]

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?

On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.

Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.

 

[P F Tinmore]

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?

On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.

Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.

It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.

 

[Hossfly]

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?

On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.

Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.

It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.

He snuck back in, Tinmore. He is now a dictator. If they have elections he'll be the single candidate. Then he will be legal and you can quit yer bitchin'. Hokay?

 

[MJB12741]

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?

Well uh, do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop attacking Israel? Or will Palestinians always think like Palestinians & wind up losing even more land?

 

[Hollie]

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?

On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.

Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.

It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.

So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm sure that I don't have to defend Israel! They are quite capable of defending themselves.

As for being :"Hasbara" --- to be mistaken for one of them is actually a complement (not an insult). I'm quite sure that the Hasbara would want to distance themselves from me. And I am also quite sure that the Fellowship (an NGO) is much better at making a very Favorable and Positive argument in our debate; --- much more so than I. They are generally only half my age and express the Israeli experience much more eloquently. And that's because Israel is a dynamic environment. Israel is not just about the struggle with the Palestinians or the issue of Holy Place and things of religious significance. Its about the beauty and wonder of the land --- fun and entertainment. I'm sure they can say it better than I can.

Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:

(COMMENT)

But enough about peace and positive stuff --- let's talk about the ugly side.

More to the point here. I don't know where you get your information. Resolution 242 says what it says. But going to the source, the authors, and drawing out their intention and meaning is as factual as you can get; no matter what book it is in.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?

Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?

On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.

Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.

It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.

So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.

Ooooo, you played the terrorist card twice in one sentence.

Good boy!