abu afak, Billo_Really,
et al,
In a very practical and real sense, the UN Security Council Resolution 242
(S/RES/242 22 November 1967) has been overtaken by events [
w/UN Map 3243 (06/97)]. Since that time, there has been one major sneak attack Arab Forces (Yom Kippur War - October 1973), the Palestinian Insurgency in South Lebanon (1971-1982), the Lebanese War (1982), South Lebanon al-Bekka Valley (1982–2000), the First Intifada (1987–1993), the Second Intifada (2000–2005), the Lebanon War (summer 2006), the Gaza Escalation (December 2008 - January 2009) culmination in Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012). But also, there has been the establishment of Peace Treaties; first with
Arab Republic of Egypt 26 March 1979 - and second with the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994 (A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995). If we look at more contemporary interpretations on the status of the Occupied Territories (OpT), we can observe in the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on
6 May 2004, A/RES/58/292 - Status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, a calm sense that the status was "one of military occupation" and that:
- Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory;
- Israel, the occupying Power, has only the duties and obligations of an occupying Power under the Geneva Convention;
- Expresses its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people;
- Attainment of a just and comprehensive negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East resulting in two viable, sovereign and independent States, Israel and Palestine;
- Such a negotiated peace settlement should be based on the pre-1967 borders and living side by side in peace and security.
And again, if we look at the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on
29 November 2012, A/RES/67/19 - Status of Palestine in the United Nations, we see much the same thing. And yet, again, in the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on
20 December 2012, A/RES/67/158 - The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, the same thing. Whether we look at paragraph 1ii of
S/RES/242 22 November 1967 or affirmation paragraph in
A/RES/67/158 26 February 2013 ---> the common theme between them all is the need to "to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders."
Remember the common theme - the question becomes would the withdrawal of the Occupation Force and settlements lead any reasonable and prudent man to believe it would achieve the goal behind this common theme?
["(T)o live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders."] This would mean that there would be no further terrorist attacks or armed incursions by Hostile Palestinians which would threaten --- in any way --- the sovereign integrity of the State of Israel and the security of its people and their holdings.
- If the answer is "YES," then one can make the assumption that the Occupation is strategy is flawed.
- If the answer is "NO," then one can assume that the recommendation/demand by the UN is flawed.
The use of the "pre-1967 borders" itself, as recommended/demanded by the UN, is problematic. It would, in fact alter the border agreements set by treaty; first with
Arab Republic of Egypt 26 March 1979 - and second with the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994 (A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995). The recommended/demanded by the UN, in near mindless support of the Hostile Arab Palestinian, has failed to take into consideration the events that precipitated between 1967 and today. Whether the world recognizes it or not, both the State of Israel and the 1988 State of Palestine have declared their Capitols in Jerusalem.
If it were as dramatically simple as to withdraw, and each party would live happily ever-after, it would have been done. There would have been no first war (1948) and there would have been no last war (1973). There would have no need for a solemn oath in 1948 by the Arabs to kill every last man, woman and child in Israel. There would have been no need for the PLO to establish guerrilla warfare elements in 1964-66 (before the 1967 occupation).
The occupation of the territories is not simply about those two little patches of land. It is about the struggle pursued by the Hostile Arab Palestinian since the time before the 1929 Riots and the emergence of the martyr Sheik Izz ad-din al-Qassam. Well today you often hear the claim that if the Israeli's would only withdraw, there would be no further attacks or terrorism. That was disproven when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza.
Again -- we come back to the question:
- Would the withdrawal of the Occupation Force and settlements lead any reasonable and prudent man to believe it would achieve the goal behind this common theme? ["(T)o live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders."] This would mean that there would be no further terrorist attacks or armed incursions by Hostile Palestinians which would threaten --- in any way --- the sovereign integrity of the State of Israel and the security of its people and their holdings.
Most Respectfully,
R
