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

[Klipkap]

The actual figures of the forces that have participated in the attack are:
400 troops
40 half-tracks
10 tanks
Samu Incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apocalypse, sorry, but you failed to add up the numbers from the Wiki source properly, but don't worry, because even the reduce numbers that you provide are more than enough evidence that Israel mounted a major attack on Jordan, something that your original post denied.

Thank you for confirming the IDF attack. So, let these records show, Israel attacked Jordan, QED. Jordan was an ally of Egypt. The real picture is starting to unfold. Want to go to Syria next?

In addition UN reports don't agree with the Wiki numbers (much as I also like quoting Wiki, you need to double check) - S/7593 of 13 November 1966

 

[Klipkap]

Did you know that this doesn't change the fact that Arabs have originated from the Arab Peninsula, and not Israel, and that Palestinians are Arabs?

This argument is a logical falacy. The Palestinians are only 'Arabs' in the sense of having absorbed the Arab language, religion and culture. Genetically they are not related to true Arabs.

If you need references to prove this, please let me know because I am presuming that Middle East students will already know the differences between cultural bonds on the one hand and genetic links on the other.

 

[Klipkap]

You are comparing here between a systematic murder by the Nazi German state of over 6 million Jews to the non-deliberate casualties of less than a thousand civilians.

And about the figures, not even the terrorist organization of Hamas would have placed the civilians casualties of operation Cast Lead at 1431, so you've really exaggerated here beyond any existing source.

I am sorry but I am not willing to debate with such irrationality, stick to the facts and I would be more than willing to answer the points you make.

You introduced the significance of only civilian casualties, right?
So tell me Apocalypse, what number of non-combatant deaths in a short 7 weeks would be high enough to draw your attention? I remember when the deaths of 67 at Sharpeville were called a massacre and condemned by all the world. Operation Cast Lead FAR exceeded that. That is the true scope of rationality.

Get used to it; the eyes on the world are on Israel; the days of them being automatically assumed to be the 'good guys' are long passed for those who search beyond Fox News. I was one of the stupid ones back when. No longer.

 

[Klipkap]

AGAIN.... What's important is one side was willing to compromise knowing all this.. the Arabs were Not.

One side is trying to gain access to a region so as to create their new 'homeland' there, and the other side, who has lived in that region under subjugation for millenia, is trying to get freedom and to stop the Zionists from muscling in.

Why does the home occupier have to show compromise, and why is the squatter get praised for doing so? The answer is simple.

By the way mbig I didn't add the "1919" Faisal/Weizmen agreement, because, as I forced you to admit on another board, it auto-negated itself. But I know that you like to repeat this myth, so I will post details of that 'agreement' if I have time.

 

[Klipkap]

Reply would be nice

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...

mbig, what does his "... only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War" mean? (reminder)

 

[Klipkap]

Regarding your last paragraph, do you have any verifiable facts to substantiate your contention. Ms Peters' studies perhaps?

If you're only going to Bait once a week you'll at least have the courtesy to read back.
I have provided Several sources for it.

Okey-dokey. Thanks mbig. As you know, I will be sure to read your contributions.

 

[Klipkap]

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.
-

Hold your horses mbig. Some of us have only just got here. In particular your second sentence is not consistent in logic with what the UNSCR drafters wrote. Over the next couple of weeks I will contribute.

 

[Klipkap]

While allowing Unbridled assorted Arab penetration to the presumed future home of the Jews 'palestine', those all-over-the-place arabs to then become "ancestral" 'palestinians'.

Nope, I don't find any sources for your claim - I looked for a reasonable time.

 

[Apocalypse]

In the article that you posted, there is no mention of villagers hiding Fatah terrorists. It clearly says:
Israel's goal in the operation was to demolish houses in Palestinian villages located south of Hebron as a show of force to preempt future violence.[4] Israel hoped that the residents of those villages would appeal to King Hussein to tame Fatah and other Palestinian militant groups.

So the village was randomly attacked?
Really?
No relation to the hiding of terrorists in the place?
Just randomly picked and attacked?

Perhaps you should try to be on the receiving end, the way I've been when Israel attacked.

Whenever someone out there is on the receiving end from Israel, it is indeed a certainty that Israel was on the receiving end before it.

My own house was bombed and my mother got almost killed. Where were the Fatah fighters ? not one single fighter to be seen in or around our around entire area.

1) An incident, picked the wrong place, got the wrong intelligence etc.

More unlikely then:

2) Terrorists were indeed in the area, wearing civilian clothes as usual and only attacking when they're in their launching spot.

If you do a google search, you will find dozens of examples where targetting civilians was used by Israel as "show of force" in order to put pressure on enemy leaders. Of course you will not find any of this mentioned in pro-Israeli web sites.

Do you mean to the extreme anti-Israeli websites that one finds when using google?

Also give me a good reason for Israel to have littered south Lebanon with cluster bombs before pulling out in 2006.

We've already been in this argument, I'm not returning on my statements and you are free to look it up in this same forum.

Not at all. The houses were usually owned by the head of the familiy which is usually the father. The member of the family who had committed acts of violence against Isael was almost always one of the sons. However, the entire family was punished and left out in the street.

And this is when you're getting far from reality.
The houses are usually owned by the terrorist himself, since most of them are men and Muslim men leave their house once they find a woman, which the terrorists usually have.

In the cases when the house is not signed on the terrorist's name, and those are cases that are in the absolute minority, the part of the house that belongs to the terrorist (his room for example) is destroyed, and the rest of the house is left as it is.
This is simply another form of deterrent against terrorists and is in no way collective punishing the entire terrorist's family, which, in most of the cases, incites the terrorist into the Anti-Israeli and sometimes anti-Jewish hatred required to take such acts.

 

[Mira]

So the village was randomly attacked?
Really?
No relation to the hiding of terrorists in the place?
Just randomly picked and attacked?
Whenever someone out there is on the receiving end from Israel, it is indeed a certainty that Israel was on the receiving end before it.
1) An incident, picked the wrong place, got the wrong intelligence etc.

More unlikely then:

2) Terrorists were indeed in the area, wearing civilian clothes as usual and only attacking when they're in their launching spot.
Do you mean to the extreme anti-Israeli websites that one finds when using google?
We've already been in this argument, I'm not returning on my statements and you are free to look it up in this same forum.
And this is when you're getting far from reality.
The houses are usually owned by the terrorist himself, since most of them are men and Muslim men leave their house once they find a woman, which the terrorists usually have.

In the cases when the house is not signed on the terrorist's name, and those are cases that are in the absolute minority, the part of the house that belongs to the terrorist (his room for example) is destroyed, and the rest of the house is left as it is.
This is simply another form of deterrent against terrorists and is in no way collective punishing the entire terrorist's family, which, in most of the cases, incites the terrorist into the Anti-Israeli and sometimes anti-Jewish hatred required to take such acts.

If I answer to your post, I'm going to get myself into yet one more unending give and take which will lead us nowhere. Personally I'm tired of that.

But just one thing before I go. More and more human rights organisations are criticising Israel's actions, the list of UN resolutions against Israel's unacceptable violence are adding up, more and more Israelis are speaking up against their own country, more and more soldiers, journalists, politicians intellectuals. It's going in that sense (against Israel's actions toward the Arabs) and not the other way around. Soon Israel will be left with no supporters at all or very few like yourself.

The times when people used to subscribe to one newspaper that went along with their beliefs are gone. Information is available everywhere. Every single person has become a witness and is able to provide images and film footage. If what Israel was doing in Gaza was lawful, why wasn't the international press allowed in to witness ? You might choose to ignore the reports of the Gazawis, but your own soldiers testified and you have chosen to ignore their testimony as well.

Stamp your feet all you want and defend Israel's behaviour. I am not naive neither are all the pro-Israelis who are changing their minds very quickly.

Good luck with your perpetual denial.

 

[Gardener]

If I answer to your post, I'm going to get myself into yet one more unending give and take which will lead us nowhere. Personally I'm tired of that.

Yet you post away, anyway. If you were actually tired of it, you would simply stop.

But just one thing before I go. More and more human rights organisations are criticising Israel's actions, the list of UN resolutions against Israel's unacceptable violence are adding up, more and more Israelis are speaking up against their own country, more and more soldiers, journalists, politicians intellectuals. It's going in that sense (against Israel's actions toward the Arabs) and not the other way around. Soon Israel will be left with no supporters at all or very few like yourself.

I/E -- if enough people hold a certain opinion, then one must conform to the majority. What a classic example of the logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum

The times when people used to subscribe to one newspaper that went along with their beliefs are gone. Information is available everywhere. Every single person has become a witness and is able to provide images and film footage. If what Israel was doing in Gaza was lawful, why wasn't the international press allowed in to witness ? You might choose to ignore the reports of the Gazawis, but your own soldiers testified and you have chosen to ignore their testimony as well.

Propaganda is, indeed, everywhere. I prefer analyzing such rhetoric for the specious themes utilized to elicit a reaction rather than just nodding my head in agreemen, though.

Stamp your feet all you want and defend Israel's behaviour. I am not naive neither are all the pro-Israelis who are changing their minds very quickly.

Good luck with your perpetual denial.

I don't really see you as naive, either.

AS to Apocalypse, here, however, I might point out that his telling the truth does not equate to his being in "perpetual denial" ( which is a personal attack btw) nor does it mean he is stamping his feet ( a disparaging portrayal of another poster), but simply that he is able to tell the truth to combat rhetoric that is misleading at best.

 

[creation]

So the village was randomly attacked?
Really?
No relation to the hiding of terrorists in the place?
Just randomly picked and attacked?
Whenever someone out there is on the receiving end from Israel, it is indeed a certainty that Israel was on the receiving end before it.
1) An incident, picked the wrong place, got the wrong intelligence etc.

More unlikely then:

2) Terrorists were indeed in the area, wearing civilian clothes as usual and only attacking when they're in their launching spot.
Do you mean to the extreme anti-Israeli websites that one finds when using google?
We've already been in this argument, I'm not returning on my statements and you are free to look it up in this same forum.
And this is when you're getting far from reality.
The houses are usually owned by the terrorist himself, since most of them are men and Muslim men leave their house once they find a woman, which the terrorists usually have.

In the cases when the house is not signed on the terrorist's name, and those are cases that are in the absolute minority, the part of the house that belongs to the terrorist (his room for example) is destroyed, and the rest of the house is left as it is.
This is simply another form of deterrent against terrorists and is in no way collective punishing the entire terrorist's family, which, in most of the cases, incites the terrorist into the Anti-Israeli and sometimes anti-Jewish hatred required to take such acts.

Thank you

That's interesting. I be interested to see a source for this practice of only demolishing one room of a house deemed to belong to one person/ suspect.

 

[creation]

In addition to the arguments against the Israeli position regarding the including of 'the' territories in the document, there are some more damning indictments against the Israeli position;

The second preamble, “Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition ofterritory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which everystate in the area can live in security” must be used to interpret the meaning of thewithdrawal phrase. The words “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory bywar” are self-explanatory. As we have seen, they do no more than reiterate thecurrent state of international law on the acquisition of territory by war.

Their presence renders impossible a good faith interpretation which would allow Israel toacquire sovereignty unilaterally over any of the territories it had occupied. This, onits own, renders the Israeli position untenable.The second limb of the same preamble, “the need to work for a just and lasting peacein which every State in the area can live in security” must also be used in the processof interpretation. These words are particularly relevant to the “secure and recognisedboundaries phrase.” It will be remembered that this is the other principle which theResolution states should be applied in order to establish a just and lasting peace.

RESPONSES TOTHE ISRAELIARGUMENTTHEINADMISSIBILITYOF THEACQUISITION FOTERRITOY BYWARSECURE ANDRECOGNISEDBOUNDARIES

The Israeli positionencounters a number of difficulties, only one of which needs to befatal in order toinvalidate the Israeli interpretation

The Israeli positiondoes not reflectthe ordinarymeaning of thewordingEven is the wording ofthe withdrawal phraseis ambiguous, it mustbe placed in thecontext of the rest ofthe Resolution
Page 5
88 Articles SectionIBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin Winter 2000-2001© We must therefore ask whether these references to “security” and “secure andrecognised boundaries” have an effect on the question of an Israeli withdrawal andits extent.There is a subtle but important difference in the language of the two limbs of thesecond preamble:…the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the needto work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area canlive in security [emphasis added].There is a distinction between something which is “inadmissible” and something forwhich there is “a need to work.” In plain English, when something is inadmissible, itis ruled out. There is thus a primacy given to the inadmissibility of the acquisition ofterritory through war in the preamble, and that primacy pervades the entireResolution. One might say that the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territorythrough war is the foundation on which the parties need to work in order to establisha just and lasting peace.To point this out is not to deny that the principles contained in the withdrawal phraseand the secure and recognised boundaries phrase are both to be applied in order toestablish a just and lasting peace, and they are placed on a footing of equality in thefirst operative paragraph. But if the second limb is to be interpreted in a way thatallows Israel to acquire territory it will lead to an illegality and at the same timedefeat the possibility of applying the principle contained in the withdrawal phrase.This would also render the Resolution internally inconsistent. The principlecontained in the secure and recognised boundaries phrase must therefore be appliedin a way that is legal and, at the same time, consistent with the principle contained in

RESOLUTION 242 ? WHY THE ISRAELI VIEW OF THE ?WITHDRAWAL PHRASE? IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW


Thus it easy to see that Israel cannot obtain or annex or achieve sovereignty over any territory gained in war. Thus it not disputed, but occupied.

Yet it annexes East Jerusalem. On what grounds?


Also, members here have attempted to introduce the words of Lord Caradon in support of their argument. However,

Lord Caradon, the British representative who introduced the draft Resolution, statedthat he believed the wording of the Resolution to be clear. He did not state in somany words what he believed the withdrawal phrase to mean, but he did say that hestood by what the British Foreign Secretary had said in the General Assembly:… Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that astate should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of war. Thismeans that Israel must withdraw. But equally, Israel’s neighbours mustrecognise its right to exist, and it must enjoy security within itsfrontiers…14There is no sign of any suggestion that Israel might acquire territory here. Nor isthere in what Lord Caradon said later in the same speech, which emphasises that thewithdrawal phrase should be interpreted in the light of the preamble:In our resolution we stated the principle of the ‘withdrawal of Israelarmed forces from land occupied in the recent conflict’ and in thepreamble we emphasised ‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition ofterritory by war’. In our view, the wording of these provisions is clear.”

 

[creation]

Also for your perusal here is a fact sheet on Resolution 242 which puts things quite nicely;

http://www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DO=795&RecID=30&DocumentID=41&SaveMode=0

 

[creation]

Ah yes. One more thing.

Please anyone let me know what you think of the account of Lord Caradon in Finkelstein's work 'Image and reality...' ;

Specifically look to page 146/ 147;

Image and reality of the Israel ... - Google Books

It seems that Lord Caradon contradicts the assertions made on this thread.

 

[mbig]

In addition to the arguments against the Israeli position regarding the including of 'the' territories in the document, there are some more damning indictments against the Israeli position;

RESOLUTION 242 ? WHY THE ISRAELI VIEW OF THE ?WITHDRAWAL PHRASE? IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

This is almost Comical .. quoting McYugo Again..Mc-denial who wants to forget we know anything about the debate preceding 242 and the Context of it's language!
LOL

And funnier yetr is how you probably found this beauty.
The usual 'I-found-this-google'.

If one Google's 'Resolution 242' one's FIRST Link would be Wikipedia"

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242]United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Which explains BOTH sides and in the end one has to go with the same Context and conclusion I provided.

BUT if one seeks to Deceive the board and show Just McYugo ... one could just take the earliest pro-palestine reference/footnote provided [8]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yielding, Hark! http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb8-4_mchugo.pdf

That McYugo without all that Damning context which is exactly the link/what You tried.

Of course, of the first TWENTY, Googles, only ONE (electronicCacca) has a pro-palestinian interpretation.. while the Others have the more Accurate 'pro-Israel' view or just the text itself.

This debate by hyper-selective link gathering is common in these days of the net.. where one can find a link (or passage/footnote within!) to justify any opinion, no matter How Ridiculous.
-

 

[creation]

This is almost Comical .. quoting McYugo Again..Mc-denial who wants to forget we know anything about the debate preceding 242 and the Context of it's language!
LOL

And funnier yetr is how you probably found this beauty.
The usual 'I-found-this-google'.

Who is McYugo? Who is Mc-denial?

Firstly, the point is that "inadmissibility" prevails over everything else for the reasons given by McHugo, it preceeds and trumps the 'working towards secure boundaries etc etc. An inclusion that as I have shown was insisted upon by Lord Caradon.

Additionally, one could add that if one were to use caradon as a defence then why no use of his additional insistance on a boundary commision?

Secondly, the context has been dealt with in the most recent posts.

If one Google's 'Resolution 242' one's FIRST Link would be Wikipedia"

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which explains BOTH sides and in the end one has to go with the same Context and conclusion I provided.

There is no need to explain both sides, as you have provided your side in the OP at the start of this thread.
Moreover if you were so interested in presenting BOTH sides as you claim, then why didnt you do so at the start of this thread ????

Why no presentation or link to all sides yourself?

Why instead do we get arguments from 'Chrsitian action for Israel'???

BUT if one seeks to Deceive the board and show Just McYugo ... one could just take the earliest pro-palestine reference/footnote provided [8]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yielding, Hark! http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb8-4_mchugo.pdf

That McYugo without all that Damning context which is exactly the link/what You tried.

Of course, of the first TWENTY, Googles, only ONE (electronicCacca) has a pro-palestinian interpretation.. while the Others have the more Accurate 'pro-Israel' view or just the text itself.

This debate by hyper-selective link gathering is common in these days of the net.. where one can find a link (or passage/footnote within!) to justify any opinion, no matter How Ridiculous.
-

Yes, you went to Wiki and linked the exact same McHugo article, so what?

As I said both sides have now been provided by the both of us but if you really believe one should always present both sides then why havent you?

Regarding google hits, there is no doubt that Israelis do have many supporters posting their arguments on the web - but can you explain the relevance of this point?

 

[mbig]

Who is McYugo? Who is Mc-denial?

He's the goofy guy who pretends 242 exists in a vacuum.. like his head.

Firstly, the point is that "inadmissibility" prevails over everything else for the reasons given by McHugo, it preceeds and trumps the 'working towards secure boundaries etc etc. An inclusion that as I have shown was insisted upon by Lord Caradon.

Lord Caradon has made himself Quite Clear!
See the Post #2 in this string.

Amazing YOU would now cite Caradon who GUTS all the crap in between you've tried to foist.

Yes, you went to Wiki and linked the exact same McHugo article, so what?

As I said both sides have now been provided by the both of us but if you really believe one should always present both sides then why havent you?

I didn't because the Whole point of the string was to show that todays' commonly held Revisionist assumption is INCORRECT.
That assumption already existed so I hardly needed to re-present it, just rebut it!

Unbelievable!

 

[creation]

He's the goofy guy who pretends 242 exists in a vacuum.. like his head.

Ill assume you mean McHugo here. In fact he is the fellow who has examined the actual wording of the text, which as you would insist, was so carefully crafted and he is also the guy who doesnt appreciate the selective spin given to the drafters of the resolution presented.

Lord Caradon has made himself Quite Clear!
See the Post #2 in this string.

Amazing YOU would now cite Caradon who GUTS all the crap in between you've tried to foist.

Indeed, he has been quite clear. In fact he has taken the view that, while there is room adjustment there is no justification for Israeli annexation of territory.

The making of Resolution 242 - Google Books

And that without the inadmissibility paragraph there could have been no unanimous vote.

http://www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DO=795&RecID=30&DocumentID=41&SaveMode=0

Meanwhile his deputy at the time in question Sir Glass believes that "Britain had almost total withdrawal in mind except for the straightening out of minor salients".

Not to mention UN General Odd Bull;s assertion that the inadmissibility insertion makes "no room for argument".

The making of Resolution 242 - Google Books

page 155.

I didn't because the Whole point of the string was to show that todays' commonly held Revisionist assumption is INCORRECT.
That assumption already existed so I hardly needed to re-present it, just rebut it!

Unbelievable!

So you dont have to present both sides because you assert that certain assumptions are already out there, but I do, since I suppose that yours and Israel's view is not out there!:roll:

Wonderful!

 

[creation]

Further, re Lord Caradon's later opinions, the outside 'context' Isreal's supporters here regard as so important, here is further information;


Image and reality of the Israel ... - Google Books


Page 147.

Please note, again no justification for annexation. Moreover in the later symposium while the Israeli Eban maintains that 'withdrawal was not made applicable to all territories' and he infers that Lord Caradon must have forgotten what happened, Lord Caradon replies that in fact he remembers it quite well.

 

[mbig]

Let's see... we can choose from:

caradon 242 - Google Search

and get your (5 time repeated) link and then the rest of the world/Mine/the Vast majority who speak on this..

or we can choose your 'cjpme' (an anti-Israel, pro-Arab, Mainly Arab, 'peace group') AND for good/laughable measure anti/Israel-Anti-semite Norman Finklefuhrer.
A banner for his 'Holocuast' industry' just after the skimpy footnote you link.
-

 

[gree0232]

Let's see... we can choose from:

caradon 242 - Google Search

and get your (5 time repeated) link and then the rest of the world/Mine/the Vast majority who speak on this..

or we can choose your 'cjpme' (an anti-Israel, pro-Arab, Mainly Arab, 'peace group') AND for good/laughable measure anti/Israel-Anti-semite Norman Finklefuhrer.
A banner for his 'Holocuast' industry' just after the skimpy footnote you link.
-

Big, are you STILL at this? At the same time you are blasting the UN as hopelessly biased, you are pulling a nearly 40 year old resolution out of the dust bin ... far what exactly?

So, in context, resolution 242 came about in the immediate aftermath of what war? Yom Kippur. The intent of the resolution, often spelled out in contextual analysis, was to separate the combatants to prevent the outbreak of another war ... like the six day war before that.

Are you trying to say that the UN and other foreign diplomats engaged during this time were attempting to settle the border? Or were they simply acknowledging that the border, where Palestinians and Israelis would want the border to be settled would be fundamentally different? Were they, perhaps, acknowledging that the final resolution of the border was less immediately important than separating the combatants when it had just become known that one of the combatants was armed with nuclear weapons?

Now, exactly what is your intent in blowing the dust of this bit of history? Allmost every single peace proposal lists the 1967 border, with mininal and EQUITABLE adjustment, as the basis of a serious peace plan. You however are claiming that the border should be adjusted? Could be adjusted?

Let's even assume that the biased, sherry drinkers in the UN crystal tower even intended this resolution to be a legal pretext to Israeli annexation, is there any major governments that support the annexation of large protions of Palestinian terrirtory as per the 1967 border? Would it be at all advantageous to annex land with with a different ethnic and cultural mix into a nominaly Jewish state?

Again, what is your intent? Exactly what case are you making? That there is room for equitable adjustment of the borders to incoporate some of the changes in ethnic distribution? Everyone acknowledges this.

If you are attempting to make a case for the outright annexation of post 1967 occupied territory to Israel you might as well attempt to uproot a redwood with a spoon. No one serious about peace will ever buy it.

 

[creation]

Let's see... we can choose from:

caradon 242 - Google Search

and get your (5 time repeated) link and then the rest of the world/Mine/the Vast majority who speak on this..

What link is 5 time repeated? the making of Resolution 242 from google books?

Ive only put it up the once.

You seem to claim that vast majority is on your side, but youve just said in the 5th last post that my view is 'commonly held'??

So which is it?

Moreover, if your view is so entrenched in the world then why do you need to go to Christian Action for Israel to make your case?

or we can choose your 'cjpme' (an anti-Israel, pro-Arab, Mainly Arab, 'peace group') AND for good/laughable measure anti/Israel-Anti-semite Norman Finklefuhrer.
A banner for his 'Holocuast' industry' just after the skimpy footnote you link.
-

Lets not argue over sources, as Im not impressed with yours either, however I will look beyond your linked website to the sources it uses..

Instead, if you dont believe what's been presented then simply refer to the sources provided by my previous two links.

Anyway, Finkelstien isnt an anti-semite, he just destroyed a few of the works that support some of the Israeli national myths such as Joan Peters - From Time immemorial. It doesnt make him an anti-semite.

As for your comment about some banner for the Holocaust industry, I dont see the relevance.

 

[creation]

Big, are you STILL at this? At the same time you are blasting the UN as hopelessly biased, you are pulling a nearly 40 year old resolution out of the dust bin ... far what exactly?

So, in context, resolution 242 came about in the immediate aftermath of what war? Yom Kippur. The intent of the resolution, often spelled out in contextual analysis, was to separate the combatants to prevent the outbreak of another war ... like the six day war before that.

Are you trying to say that the UN and other foreign diplomats engaged during this time were attempting to settle the border? Or were they simply acknowledging that the border, where Palestinians and Israelis would want the border to be settled would be fundamentally different? Were they, perhaps, acknowledging that the final resolution of the border was less immediately important than separating the combatants when it had just become known that one of the combatants was armed with nuclear weapons?

Now, exactly what is your intent in blowing the dust of this bit of history? Allmost every single peace proposal lists the 1967 border, with mininal and EQUITABLE adjustment, as the basis of a serious peace plan. You however are claiming that the border should be adjusted? Could be adjusted?

Let's even assume that the biased, sherry drinkers in the UN crystal tower even intended this resolution to be a legal pretext to Israeli annexation, is there any major governments that support the annexation of large protions of Palestinian terrirtory as per the 1967 border? Would it be at all advantageous to annex land with with a different ethnic and cultural mix into a nominaly Jewish state?

Again, what is your intent? Exactly what case are you making? That there is room for equitable adjustment of the borders to incoporate some of the changes in ethnic distribution? Everyone acknowledges this.

If you are attempting to make a case for the outright annexation of post 1967 occupied territory to Israel you might as well attempt to uproot a redwood with a spoon. No one serious about peace will ever buy it.

His ultimate point is that the occupied territories are not occupied but disputed.
He has sought to use quotes from those involved at the time to support this. Unfortunately their words and meanings have not been accurately represented.

 

[gree0232]

His ultimate point is that the occupied territories are not occupied but disputed.
He has sought to use quotes from those involved at the time to support this. Unfortunately their words and meanings have not been accurately represented.

Disputed or occupied is irrelevant. There are both Israelis and Palestinians on the land and one way or another we will have to find a way for the two people to live on the same land equitably.

I'd be more interested in knowing how a UN resolution can be THE defining bit of parchment when the entire organization that produced is without merit and hopelessly biased.