• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Resolution 242; 1967 Borders; "illegal" even "Occupied"

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
(Mods please excuse these consecutive Reference posts.
They are meant to clear 10,000 times their bandwidth in Bogus claims and needless back and forth argument based on incorrect basis)



So many strings use these loaded words and platitudes as a basis.
Not that they are far-fetched with regards todays International rhetoric....

Just WRONG.

Resolution 242, Despite recent and Grotesque Revisionism as to it Meaning, provided for and Always foresaw Israel taking a small buffer in recognition of the fact it won it in a Defensive if pre-emptive war.

Ergo The Fence (aka incorrectly as "Wall"), which runs app 3% into the WB, is on "Disputed territory", not "Occupied".
Pending border negotiations.
It could well be considered part of that anticipated buffer. (see below)
There is NO Recognized Border; the Green Line just being where the troops stopped when the whistle blew; so there can be no "illegal occupation".

Certainly tho the further out settlements, aka 'outposts' are in bad faith and will be eventually dismantled.


THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242

"The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242], tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change...Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.'
When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution [calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines] but it was NOT a viable alternative to the UK text
...Members [of the UN Security Council] voted and adopted the [UK drafted] resolution unanimously..." (UN Security Council Resolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28.

Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242: "...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is Lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, Failed to command the requisite support..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973).

Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories...
- Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were Defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another.
Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was NOT to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' 1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..."
(UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17).
The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft, which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council. (American Society of International Law, 1970).

UNSC RESOLUTION AND ISRAEL'S DEFENSIBLE BORDERS:

A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of 'secure boundaries' for Israel. They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler.
The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.'
(Prof. Ezra Zohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000).

THE GOLAN HEIGHTS AND THE FACTS - UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 - A WITHDRAWAL TO THE 1949/1967 LINES?



WHAT IS THE STANCE OF SYRIA AND OTHER ARAB STATES ON 242?

Syria Rejected UNSC Resolution 242 because it did not require Israel to withdraw to the 1949/1967 cease fire Lines.
Syria was joined by the other Arab States, claiming that the 1949/1967 Lines were not final borders.

(mbig note ... later/1973 accepting the incorrect 'French Translation'/Mistranslation that because of a quirk of language included the article 'the' that was specifically rejected in the Original negotiations and Final Draft
The Palestinians Also REJECTED Resolution 242 until 1988 and then tried the same revisionist trick as the Syrians.. as all the Arabs and most others now Try.)



THE ESSENCE OF UNSC RESOLUTION 242:

***242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines;
***242 mandates negotiation - give and take, rather than give and give;
***242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation;
***242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of 'secure and recognized borders', which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized.

ex from:
Christian Action for Israel - 404 - Page Not Found]Christian Action for Israel - 404 - Page Not Found //
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Lord Caradon, an [chief] author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

"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."

MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978

above quote; Peace encylopedia
Below ones sourced at post bottom.


"..Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:

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

Answer: "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...



Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

Question: "What is the British Interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from ALL territories taken in the late war?"

Mr. Stewart: "NO, Sir. That is NOT the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read Concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."...."



Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:

"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council.
"I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders.
The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and NOT from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will NOT Withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

USA

Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):

"That Resolution did Not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."



Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law/Public Affairs, Yale University.. 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:

a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and Not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'.
Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' Failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, Not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines."

USSR

- Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... there is certainly much Leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)

+More at link below

Statements Clarifying the Meaning of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242
 
Last edited:

Marc39

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
834
Reaction score
107
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well done. Exemplary. An excellent resource. Thanks for sharing.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thanks.

And yet not a Single 'anti-zionist' poster took/could take issue with this string.

A string that would preclude the hourly use of 'Occupied' and 'Illegal'.
(maybe that's why they haven't)

A string which shows the ICJ in declaring the Fence 'illegal' nearly 30 years later was also 100% wrong.
-
 
Last edited:

Marc39

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
834
Reaction score
107
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Thanks.

And yet not a Single 'anti-zionist' poster took/could take issue with this string.

A string that would preclude the hourly use of 'Occupied' and 'Illegal'.
(maybe that's why they haven't)

A string which shows the ICJ in declaring the Fence 'illegal' nearly 30 years later was also 100% wrong.
-

They are generally ill-equipped to even try to dispute the facts presented. One particularly uninformed individual didn't know the difference between the British Mandate and the Palestine Mandate. The former, of course, was the 30 years of British administration of Palestine, the latter, the actual resolution that established Palestine the Jewish homeland. Despite my indulging his ignorance of the subject matter in an attempt to enlighten him, he remains confused to this day.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Mbig,

The information you cite concerning the reality that UN Security Council Resolution 242 did not seek to impose fixed pre-1967 war boundaries on Israel is correct. Those boundaries were the armistice lines following the 1948 war. The armistice lines were solely intended to separate the armies. They were not intended to serve as permanent boundaries. The permanent borders were supposed to result from negotiations between the parties. The original intent of UNSC Res. 242 recognized the temporary nature of the armistice lines and allowed for a degree of flexibility so that Israel would gain boundaries that were secure and recognized.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Agreed.
But as you read above..
In recognition of the fact that the war was Defensive if Pre-emptive one for Israel, the language was very clear that those borders would be achieved by withdrawal, But an UN-full/Partial withdrawal to a point where the borders were more defendable for reasons of Geography or just plain degree of buffer deemed needed.
NOT 'all' the territory. and not even 'the' territory.
Those articles specifically rejected for that reason.
Other statements above make that clear as well.

The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, Failed to command the requisite support..."

- Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were Defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another.
Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was NOT to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' 1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..."

And the 1948 armistice lines even less advantageous to the Arabs than the original/181 partition lines.

And, counterintuitively, I believe Resolution 242 was passed under the even more binding Chapter VI than the 'Creation' Resolution 181's Chapter VII.
(I always mix the two categories up but you get the gist.
May research and edit time permitting)

It's also quite amazing, to be seeing Today's diplomats, (especially British) saying the opposite of what their predecessors who created the resolution Knew to be and, in fact, made the case.
 
Last edited:

Marc39

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
834
Reaction score
107
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And, counterintuitively, I believe Resolution 242 was passed under the even more binding Chapter VI than the 'Creation' Resolution 181's Chapter VII.
(I always mix the two categories up but you get the gist.
May research and edit time permitting)

242 is a Chapt. VI resolution, making it non-binding(Chapt. VII is legally binding) UN Res. 338 is thought to have been passed to give added strength to 242, however, IIRC, 338 is not specifically a Chapt. VII resolution, either, further confusing matters.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
i'm not very familiar with the resolution, but I see you're arguing about the legality of the borders.

Good for you.

But "legality" is not the panacea, you also have to take legitimity into account. You have to realize that a fair solution has to be found, the border should give roughly half of the territory to one and the other half to the other one. The border should allow both parts to live autonomously and develop an economy.

The 1967 borders do that. That's why they are legitimate and should be respected.

The patchwork borders created by the never-ending annexion of Palestinian land by settlers don't do that. One side gets more and more land while the other side is enclosed, isolated, fragmented. That's unfair. That's why the colonies are not legitimate and why they should be destroyed.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But "legality" is not the panacea, you also have to take legitimity into account. You have to realize that a fair solution has to be found, the border should give roughly half of the territory to one and the other half to the other one. The border should allow both parts to live autonomously and develop an economy.

.

IsraelMap1920-mandate_for_palestine.jpg




Half to each, you say? Arabs already have the large majority of territory.

Are you suggesting taking some from Jordan to give to Israel here?
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
IsraelMap1920-mandate_for_palestine.jpg




Half to each, you say? Arabs already have the large majority of territory.

Are you suggesting taking some from Jordan to give to Israel here?
I have no objection to that. :2razz:
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
IsraelMap1920-mandate_for_palestine.jpg




Half to each, you say? Arabs already have the large majority of territory.

Are you suggesting taking some from Jordan to give to Israel here?

...you could also have taken a map of the world and say "give half of it to Israel" :roll:

I don't find it anymore, but there is a map where you see the populations of arabs & jewish people during the 40's. The border should roughly respect that. The 1967 border does that.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
...you could also have taken a map of the world and say "give half of it to Israel" :roll:

I don't find it anymore, but there is a map where you see the populations of arabs & jewish people during the 40's. The border should roughly respect that. The 1967 border does that.

You are the one who said half, little fella.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have no objection to that. :2razz:

Didn't think you would! :mrgreen:


Don't you think Bub was magnanimous in suggesting half, though -- especially considering the thoroughness with which he has been trained to hate Israel.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Jews were a majority in the area that became Israel.
Not in the overall mandate nor what was left after Jordan.. but in the area that did become Israel.
Having been the largest constituent of the population in places like Jerusalem since about 1840.

Continuing on with the Map and division...

77% of British Mandate was lopped and made Jordan, no Jews allowed. Still.

isr47prt.jpg


Jordan is 70% 'Palestinian'.
Leaving the other 23% divided roughly 13-10 for the Jews.

Meaning the Arabs aka Palestinians got 87% of the Mandate.
(the Pink AND Red Areas)

And ½ of the Jews 13% was the Negev Desert. (lower part of the light Blue Area above)
So Jews really got about 6% of the usable land of the Original Mandate..and about 1% of the Ottoman land.
(The arabs got 99% of the land and 100% of the resources.
If you want to keep breaking Arabs down into small sub-groups like the nonexistant-at-the-time 'palestinians', one can always find small injustice.)

AND unlike in the surrounding states... Arabs still live in/make up 20% of Current Israel's population within that land.
Had they not rejected the partition/started a war in 1948, They might even be a majority by now.

Also not seen on maps.. 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land, passing from the Ottomans, to the British, to the Jews; owned by NO Arab.

jewish_occupation.gif
 
Last edited:

gree0232

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
428
Location
All over
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I find this thread to be very interesting and generally pointless.

Is the intent behind this to mean that Israel would be within its rights to annex all Palestinian territory? Well good luck with that.

The introduction of Syria is, at best, a diversion. Syria interest in regaining the Golan hieghts has nothing to do with the Palestinian state. There is no Arab peace proposal regarding the creation of a Palestinian state that links the Golan heights and it return to Syria as an important part of a Palestinian state. None.

It also doesn't address the opposite side of the coin. What are the Palestinian states requirements to be viable?

Most peace proposals site the 1967 borers as the general settlement with some alteration .... while maintaining equality.

All this thread is based upon is a very extreme presentation of Israeli thought, backed by brad egal opinion (the same sor of legal opinion that apparently authorized us to torture), and completely fails to address the response to an attempt to impliment the ideas.

This presentation is in keeping with many militant Israeli presentations, it fails completely to acknowledge, much less address, the Arab and Palestinian response.
:2wave:

In short, this does nothing to resolve the underlying grievences of the I/P conflict. But we feel better having written it. :)

And, big, as for rambling diatribes, eat your heart out.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You are the one who said half, little fella.

yeah but half of that

Palestine_frontier_1922.png


and that would even be generous, considering that in 1932, 80% of the population was arab and only 16% were Jewish people and that in 1945 it was still 60% arab and 30% Jewish
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

I find this thread to be very interesting and generally pointless.


Is the intent behind this to mean that Israel would be within its rights to annex all Palestinian territory? Well good luck with that.

The introduction of Syria is, at best, a diversion.
Syria interest in regaining the Golan hieghts has nothing to do with the Palestinian state. There is no Arab peace proposal regarding the creation of a Palestinian state that links the Golan heights and it return to Syria as an important part of a Palestinian state. None.

It also doesn't address the opposite side of the coin. What are the Palestinian states requirements to be viable?
Resolution 242 does NOT just address the 'Palestinian State' (or rather the territory later put forth as such)... but Golan as well (and Sinai as well)
Your post, as ever, argumentative and PointLESS.

This is the Middle East section, not Just the 'Palestintinian section'.. but even if it was the Palestinian section this string has plenty of Relevance.


Your assault is Incorrect.. as all your posts.


Most peace proposals site the 1967 borers as the general settlement with some alteration .... while maintaining equality.
So does 242. Duh!
Using 67 borders as a basis for negotiating, but aknowledging those borders would be achieved through Incomplete withdrawal/a buffer for Israel to NEW "Secure and recognized" boundaries.
Recognizing the war (another war) was Defensive, if pre-emptive.


All this thread is based upon is a very extreme presentation of Israeli thought, backed by brad egal opinion (the same sor of legal opinion that apparently authorized us to torture), and completely fails to address the response to an attempt to impliment the ideas.

This presentation is in keeping with many militant Israeli presentations, it fails completely to acknowledge, much less address, the Arab and Palestinian response.

This presentation States the Truth about 242.
Perhaps the truth IS in Israel's favor on this Res. and clearly you don't like that either.. because as always.. YOU CAN'T REBUT/DEBATE the meat.
ergo you BS a[nother] reply/Empty cheap shot.

In short, this does nothing to resolve the underlying grievences of the I/P conflict. But we feel better having written it. :)

And, big, as for rambling diatribes, eat your heart out.

What juvenile/wise crack trolling on your part.
This string presents an UNrevisionist BASIS for settling the I-P conflict.
And ALL the parties to the conflict agree 242 IS that basis.

If 242 is "pointless" here, nothing is worth posting.


and BTW, 242 does NOT mention 'palestinians' nor 'palestine' since there was NO palestine for 1948-1967 when the Arabs controlled the Area.
Even They didn't believe in this joke until Israel won the WB form JORDAN who had Annexed it in 1950. (and Gaza from Egypt).
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
yeah but half of that

and that would even be generous, considering that in 1932, 80% of the population was arab and only 16% were Jewish people and that in 1945 it was still 60% arab and 30% Jewish

That's it?
No response to the 87% of the Mandate the Arabs/palestinians got?
The previous lopping off of ¾ to Jordan/the 'palestinians'/palestine I, and the banning of Jews from the area.

And "half" wouldn't have been generous since:

1. ½ the land Israel was given was the thought-useless Negev.
2. 2/3 of the Land Israel got (including the above) was State Land belonging to the Ottomans and NO arab.
That land passing from them to the British to the Jews.
That is, Only 1/3 of the 13% (4%) of the Mandate that became Israel, was private land.. and Jews owned a good deal of that.
-
 
Last edited:

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
That's it?
No response to the 87% of the Mandate the Arabs/palestinians got?
The previous lopping off of ¾ to Jordan/the 'palestinians'/palestine I, and the banning of Jews from the area.

the part of the land that they get should be proportionate to the proportion of people living there

maybe the Jewish people got only 13% of the British mandate, but they were also probably less than 13% so there is no reason to complain



And "half" wouldn't have been generous since:

1. ½ the land Israel was given was the thought-useless Negev.

are West Bank and Gaza more fertile than Israel?



2. 2/3 of the Land Israel got (including the above) was State Land belonging to the Ottomans and NO arab.

that doesn't change my argument, there should be a fair border based on factors like "where were the main jewish/palestinian cities" and "what was the proportion of jewish/arabs"



That is, Only 1/3 of the 13% (4%) of the Mandate that became Israel, was private land.. and Jews owned a good deal of that.
-

and how many jewish people lived in 1930 in what are now illegal colonies in West Bank?
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
the part of the land that they get should be proportionate to the proportion of people living there

maybe the Jewish people got only 13% of the British mandate, but they were also probably less than 13% so there is no reason to complain

So you object to the UK willy-nilly giving Palestine I/Jordan (77% of the Mandate) to a Hashemite Saudi Prince.
And of Course the Kurds being ruled by 'Iraq' another Arab Hashemite Prince. More Britsih Folly.
As opposed to Israel/res 181, which was voted on by the UN/a world body.

As I showed in my posts.. which you first couldn't Understand at all.. then 'quoted' but still didn't acknowledge...
Jews did get roughly the land the deserved if one takes into consideration how much was privately owned and it's fertility.

As to any other questions that you think will help your argument-- I suggest you get the answers Before posting next time.. instead of asking me.

EDIT to Bub a few below
I just Reiterate ABOVE rather than taking up more bandwidth to answer NOTHING New.
Do your own research too.
Jesus, You know 'Google' or just use the net to Ramble?

-
 
Last edited:

gree0232

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
428
Location
All over
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's it?
No response to the 87% of the Mandate the Arabs/palestinians got?
The previous lopping off of ¾ to Jordan/the 'palestinians'/palestine I, and the banning of Jews from the area.

And "half" wouldn't have been generous since:

1. ½ the land Israel was given was the thought-useless Negev.
2. 2/3 of the Land Israel got (including the above) was State Land belonging to the Ottomans and NO arab.
That land passing from them to the British to the Jews.
That is, Only 1/3 of the 13% (4%) of the Mandate that became Israel, was private land.. and Jews owned a good deal of that.
-

This is kinda irrelevant. This can help us understand how we arrived at where we are, the questionable decisions made along the line, but it does not address a solution to the problem.

It is in essence finger pointing.

Again, when I see things like this, I wuld really refer you to problem solving processes, from whatever industry or profession you happen to be part of.

THere are two steps, at eh very beginning of the process that I see violated here.

1. Accurately define the problem. In order to do that, you must look at the problem from multiple view points. The problem here is not really stated. It is simply a justification of ... what exactly? That Israel can claim all of Palestine?

2. That leads to the second problem, regardless of the problem solving model, solution must meet three basic criteria: Suitable, Acceptable, Feasible. If you are comparing multiple solutions then you would add distinguishable and complete.

The solution here violates two of the criteria: Feasible and Acceptable.

a. Although the ideas here might be acceptable to the Israeli's, they are certainly not to the Palestinians.

b. Israel lacks the resources to simply annex Palestine out right, ergo it is not feasible even to the Israelis.

c. It is further infeasible in that it completely fails to acknowledge what the response from one of the two parties will be.

Effectively, as this is clearly not a solution to the I/P problem, this is little more than propoganda.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm sorry Gree.

You last post was an obnoxious Troll.. and your current an attempted/tempered defense of such... but avoiding my post pointing that out; instead quoting my reply to bub. (bub who doesn't want/or know how to use a search engine, rather have me look up his side.. too)

If Resolution 242 is "pointless" in this section then nothing has a point.. including your Noxious/Incorrect posts dismissing it.

Your new excuse/post doesn't change that and I'm reporting your last.

I'm done with you now BOY.
Let somone else field your incoherent, Ghadafi-esque diatribes which are Never direct answers.
-
 
Last edited:

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So you object to the UK willy-nilly giving Palestine I/Jordan (77% of the Mandate) to a Hashemite Saudi Prince.
And of Course the Kurds being ruled by 'Iraq' another Arab Hashemite Prince. More Britsih Folly.
As opposed to Israel/res 181, which was voted on by the UN/a world body
.

The brits screwed the border, the tensions between shia and sunni are more than enough to show that. But what does that change to my argument about the borders being traced on basis of the proportionality of jewish/palestinians?



Jews did get roughly the land the deserved if one takes into consideration how much was privately owned and it's fertility.

I don't think that the census took into account only the land owned by jewish people, the census I'm talking about was about the number of inhabitants.

As for the fertility, of course the Neguev is a desert, but are the parts that the Palestinian got much more fertile (I honestly don't know, I'm asking you)?

As to any other questions that you think will help your argument-- I suggest you get the answers Before posting next time.. instead of asking me.
-

when you claim something on a forum, you have to bring the informations via links to reliable websites
 

gree0232

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
428
Location
All over
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm sorry Gree.

You last post was an obnoxious Troll.. and your current an attempted/tempered defense of such... but avoiding my post pointing that out; instead quoting my reply to bub. (bub who doesn't want/or know how to use a search engine, rather have me look up his side.. too)

If Resolution 242 is "pointless" in this section then nothing has a point.. including your Noxious/Incorrect posts dismissing it.

Your new excuse/post doesn't change that and I'm reporting your last.

I'm done with you now BOY.
Let somone else field your incoherent, Ghadafi-esque diatribes which are Never direct answers.
-

OK, what exactly are you argueing?

What is the point?

You went through a long diatribe, asking the mods to excuse behavior you yourself have no tolerance for, and you have no thesis.

All of that evidence supports a claim that Israel can and should do what?

Pointing out that someones long statements do not have a point and are thus effectively propoganda does not violate any rules. So feel free to report.
 
Top Bottom