It's funny how the progressive types get so up in arms about fighting anti-semetism but when it comes to them, you know, protecting their homeland from terrorist psychos they are told to fuck themselves.
I assume you mean that Jews protecting Israel from terrorist psychos are told to fuck themselves, right? Yeah, I've often thought there is a little bit of a double standard in a lot of the discussions on Israel.
Is that how you try and justify 40 years of brutal occupation, war crimes, and crimes against humanity?
It's interesting that the Nazis used similar tactics. They claimed that they were under attack from Jewish terrorists.
On the subject of terrorism, just last year Israel attacked a defenseless civilian population and murdered an estimated 800 civilians and 25 police recruits. So who are the terrorists?
Seriously, fighting over history and who was the greater victim is pretty pointless. We should be concerned with what can bring about the best solution for everyone now, not with a pissing match about who did what to whom 60 years ago.
There's nothing new about this though. You're just throwing this out there without any sort of historical context. He isn't talking about all the settlements. He's talking about certain blocks of settlements that Israel hopes to retain in a final peace deal, and which many people have argued Israel has a legitimate security concern in maintaining control of. He isn't going to concede that Israel has no right to these settlements because that would undermine his ability to negotiate a future deal. And I still don't understand why a total freeze is necessary. I mean I think there should be a total freeze on settlement building, but you still haven't explained to me why the building means that the Palestinians can't negotiate. Aren't we the one's who were pissed that no one would negotiate with Iran? Why should negotiations have any preconditions?
Israel has no right to retain any of the settlements. It only has the right to get the fuck out of the occupied territories. The Palestinians have already conceded over 80% of their land, and yet you accuse them of being rejectionists.
First, I object to your use of "zionist" in a derogatory manner. I consider myself a zionist, in as much as I believe that Jews, just like any other people, have a right to self-determination in our homeland. I recognize that the practical application of this is complicated, and has resulted in some bad stuff, but to my mind saying that zionism is illegitimate is tantamount to employing a double standard whereby everyone is entitled to the right of self-determination except the Jews.
Michael Neumann:
'Zionism has never been a movement for the defence of the Jewish religion.; on the contrary, many of the most religious Jews abhor it. It was never even a movement in defence of some cultural entity; when the Zionist movement began, Jews had no common language and their traditions were in many cases wildly dissimilar or simply abandoned altogether. Zionism was a movement that advocated not so much the defense of an ethnic group, as the formation of such a group in Palestine, where those who were thought to fit a certain semi-racial category were to find refuge. It was a lovely dream where all Jews would live happily together and, with typical Wilsonian obliviousness, no one seemed to notice that those who did not pass ethnic muster had no place in this fantasy. If they were to be tolerated, welcomed, even loved, it was to be at the pleasure of the Jews. Of that there could be no mistake. This is exactly the sort of vulnerable subordination that Jews, quite understandably, were trying to escape. "Trust us, we'll be nice" is not a promise endorsed by the historical record.
Zionists respond with fury when their movement is identified with racism. Many ethnic supremacists do. They protest that they do not advocate their own superiority, but simply want a land or culture of their own. But that is of necessity a land where one race is guaranteed supremacy: whether or not this is on grounds of intrinsic superiority hardly matters. And that such movements and attitudes gain respectability is not the fault of the Zionists, much less of the Jews, but of an idiotically false tolerance of ethnic nationalism....
...Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...
If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'
I'm not really trying to convince anyone. I'm pretty sure I said at the outset, or at least said in one of my recent posts that I don't think that many people who post on these Israel threads are open to seeing the other side. But just in case I thought I'd attempt to give you the Israeli perspective. I'm not trying to justify anything here. I think Israel treats the Palestinians like shit, and I'd really like to see that end. What I'm saying is that you don't seem either capable or willing to see that this conflict has many more victims than you acknowledge. Frankly I find it laughable that you think Israel is not under threat, because I've seen the threat Israel is under first hand. I doubt that I can get through to you, but trust me it's very traumatizing to be walking around not knowing if you're about to get blown up. People in America have no idea. Sept. 11 was a one time thing. In Israel, when I was there, terrorism was a constant threat, and it wasn't just at airports, it was everywhere. When you get on the bus, if you're even brave enough to get on the bus, the first thing you do is figure out where do I sit so that if a terrorist gets at the front and blows himself up I might survive. When you go to a cafe, after you are searched by the security guard at the front (all restaurants and cafes in Israel have security checks at the front) you move as far away from the door and windows as you can just in case a bomber is stopped by security and blows himself up at the front of the house. You never go downtown because it's too much of a target. You walk around constantly aware of everyone around you. Is that guy wearing a big coat trying to conceal a bomb belt. Are those wires coming out of that guys pockets a bomb or just a music player. My point is that you don't have a clue what Israelis have lived through, and if you did you'd realize that they have good reason to be afraid of the Palestinians. That is not meant to justify everything that is done to the Palestinians, just to say that you are only looking at one side of the story, and if you can't understand where the Israelis are coming from then you simply aren't going to ever have a complete understanding of this conflict.
If you are really so afraid of the threat of terrorism then you should be a vocal supporter of an end to the occupation, such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Neumann, and these guys: http://www.jatonyc.org/
Jews Against the Occupation
Our Mission
Jews Against the Occupation is an organization of progressive, secular and religious Jews of all ages throughout the New York City area advocating peace through justice for Palestine and Israel. Our points of unity are as follows:
NO OCCUPATION IN OUR NAME
We as American Jews reject the Israeli government assertion that it is "necessary" to subjugate Palestinians for the sake of keeping Jews safe. We assert that security can only come from mutual respect, and that the occupation of Palestine is only worsening the position of Jews in the Middle East and around the world.
RESTORE HUMAN & CIVIL RIGHTS
The Israeli military fires bone-crushing rubber bullets and live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian civilians engaged in peaceful protest, failing to distinguish between peaceful and violent resistance. The Israeli government has been demolishing Palestinian houses and crops in the Occupied Territories, while allowing Jewish settlers -- many of them American -- to illegally occupy the same land.
END U.S. AID TO ISRAEL
The U.S. government provides more aid to Israel than to any other country—the vast majority of this is for military purposes. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have propped up the occupation and fueled the Israeli government’s war machine (as well as disguising the occupation’s true cost). This aid must end.
STOP ECONOMIC ATTACKS ON PALESTINE
The Israeli government has attacked the Palestinian economy by: closing Palestinian banks; imposing extreme taxes on business; withdrawing operating licenses; destroying industrial equipment; bulldozing farmland and banning fishing; restricting workers' movement; controlling the export of Palestinian goods; closing the borders of the Occupied Territories; and refusing to fund infrastructure like water and electricity -- even in Arab villages within Israel.
LET PALESTINIANS RETURN HOME
Thousands of Palestinians were driven out of their houses and off of their farms during and after the creation of Israel. They must be allowed to return to their homeland.
ANTI-SEMITISM VS. CRITIQUES OF ISRAEL
Jews Against the Occupation stands firmly against anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms. We see our historical struggle against anti- Semitism--a cornerstone of European white supremacist ideology--as inherently linked to all struggles against oppression. We therefore stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom.
Judaism is a cultural and religious identity, which must not be equated with Zionism, a political movement. Criticism of the state of Israel, its policies, or the idea of a Jewish state does not by itself constitute anti-Semitism. Dismissing critics of Israel or of Zionism as "anti-Semitic" is a means of stifling debate and masking the impact of the occupation.
Byrnzie, I'm not going to try to argue with you. I think that I'm a pretty reasonable guy. I keep telling you guys that I'm not trying to justify all the terrible things Israel does to the Palestinians, only to get you guys to wake up and realize that you are looking at one of the worlds most complex conflicts in black and white, which is an absurd way to look at it. I'm also quite frankly shocked that for all your empathy for the Palestinians you seemingly have none left for innocent Israelis who are blown to pieces riding the bus or having a cup of coffee. Byrnzie, from what I gather you live in China and have never been to Israel. As someone that has lived through this conflict myself, I think that I'm qualified to tell you that just because Chomsky writes something doesn't make it true. I have spoken to literally thousands of Israelis from across the political spectrum, and the majority of them want nothing more than for the occupation to end and for there to be peace. The problem, as they see it, is that they can't trust the Palestinians not to use the West Bank and Gaza as bases to continue attacking them, and they aren't about to test the hypothesis by putting their lives on the line. I seriously doubt that you are capable of the objectivity necessary here to try and see the situation from the Israeli perspective. At least nothing I've read that you've posted has suggested that you are. But if you really want to have a discussion about what can practically be done to resolve this conflict, rather than just venting like an angry, self-righteous, link-happy blowhard, I would love to have that conversation.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
First, I object to your use of "zionist" in a derogatory manner. I consider myself a zionist, in as much as I believe that Jews, just like any other people, have a right to self-determination in our homeland. I recognize that the practical application of this is complicated, and has resulted in some bad stuff, but to my mind saying that zionism is illegitimate is tantamount to employing a double standard whereby everyone is entitled to the right of self-determination except the Jews.
Michael Neumann:
'Zionism has never been a movement for the defence of the Jewish religion.; on the contrary, many of the most religious Jews abhor it. It was never even a movement in defence of some cultural entity; when the Zionist movement began, Jews had no common language and their traditions were in many cases wildly dissimilar or simply abandoned altogether. Zionism was a movement that advocated not so much the defense of an ethnic group, as the formation of such a group in Palestine, where those who were thought to fit a certain semi-racial category were to find refuge. It was a lovely dream where all Jews would live happily together and, with typical Wilsonian obliviousness, no one seemed to notice that those who did not pass ethnic muster had no place in this fantasy. If they were to be tolerated, welcomed, even loved, it was to be at the pleasure of the Jews. Of that there could be no mistake. This is exactly the sort of vulnerable subordination that Jews, quite understandably, were trying to escape. "Trust us, we'll be nice" is not a promise endorsed by the historical record.
Zionists respond with fury when their movement is identified with racism. Many ethnic supremacists do. They protest that they do not advocate their own superiority, but simply want a land or culture of their own. But that is of necessity a land where one race is guaranteed supremacy: whether or not this is on grounds of intrinsic superiority hardly matters. And that such movements and attitudes gain respectability is not the fault of the Zionists, much less of the Jews, but of an idiotically false tolerance of ethnic nationalism....
...Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...
If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'
Thank you for letting me know what Mr. Neumann thinks. I respectfully disagree.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
..you simply aren't correct that all settlements are illegal. The drafters of UN resolution 242, which calls for Israel to return land captured in '67 have gone on record saying that they were very careful when drafting the resolution to write the language in such a way as to acknowledge that Israel's pre-'67 borders weren't defensible and that Israel had a legitimate right to seek to alter those borders as part of a peace settlement.
242 says nothing of the sort. And the only ambiguity regarding the final borders lies in whether Israel should finally withdraw to the 1949 Armistice lines, or to the 1948 borders as outlined by the U.N Partition plan.
Resolution 242 emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."
"It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted."
I'm not really trying to convince anyone. I'm pretty sure I said at the outset, or at least said in one of my recent posts that I don't think that many people who post on these Israel threads are open to seeing the other side. But just in case I thought I'd attempt to give you the Israeli perspective. I'm not trying to justify anything here. I think Israel treats the Palestinians like shit, and I'd really like to see that end. What I'm saying is that you don't seem either capable or willing to see that this conflict has many more victims than you acknowledge. Frankly I find it laughable that you think Israel is not under threat, because I've seen the threat Israel is under first hand. I doubt that I can get through to you, but trust me it's very traumatizing to be walking around not knowing if you're about to get blown up. People in America have no idea. Sept. 11 was a one time thing. In Israel, when I was there, terrorism was a constant threat, and it wasn't just at airports, it was everywhere. When you get on the bus, if you're even brave enough to get on the bus, the first thing you do is figure out where do I sit so that if a terrorist gets at the front and blows himself up I might survive. When you go to a cafe, after you are searched by the security guard at the front (all restaurants and cafes in Israel have security checks at the front) you move as far away from the door and windows as you can just in case a bomber is stopped by security and blows himself up at the front of the house. You never go downtown because it's too much of a target. You walk around constantly aware of everyone around you. Is that guy wearing a big coat trying to conceal a bomb belt. Are those wires coming out of that guys pockets a bomb or just a music player. My point is that you don't have a clue what Israelis have lived through, and if you did you'd realize that they have good reason to be afraid of the Palestinians. That is not meant to justify everything that is done to the Palestinians, just to say that you are only looking at one side of the story, and if you can't understand where the Israelis are coming from then you simply aren't going to ever have a complete understanding of this conflict.
If you are really so afraid of the threat of terrorism then you should be a vocal supporter of an end to the occupation, such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Neumann, and these guys: http://www.jatonyc.org/
Jews Against the Occupation
Our Mission
Jews Against the Occupation is an organization of progressive, secular and religious Jews of all ages throughout the New York City area advocating peace through justice for Palestine and Israel. Our points of unity are as follows:
NO OCCUPATION IN OUR NAME
We as American Jews reject the Israeli government assertion that it is "necessary" to subjugate Palestinians for the sake of keeping Jews safe. We assert that security can only come from mutual respect, and that the occupation of Palestine is only worsening the position of Jews in the Middle East and around the world.
RESTORE HUMAN & CIVIL RIGHTS
The Israeli military fires bone-crushing rubber bullets and live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian civilians engaged in peaceful protest, failing to distinguish between peaceful and violent resistance. The Israeli government has been demolishing Palestinian houses and crops in the Occupied Territories, while allowing Jewish settlers -- many of them American -- to illegally occupy the same land.
END U.S. AID TO ISRAEL
The U.S. government provides more aid to Israel than to any other country—the vast majority of this is for military purposes. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have propped up the occupation and fueled the Israeli government’s war machine (as well as disguising the occupation’s true cost). This aid must end.
STOP ECONOMIC ATTACKS ON PALESTINE
The Israeli government has attacked the Palestinian economy by: closing Palestinian banks; imposing extreme taxes on business; withdrawing operating licenses; destroying industrial equipment; bulldozing farmland and banning fishing; restricting workers' movement; controlling the export of Palestinian goods; closing the borders of the Occupied Territories; and refusing to fund infrastructure like water and electricity -- even in Arab villages within Israel.
LET PALESTINIANS RETURN HOME
Thousands of Palestinians were driven out of their houses and off of their farms during and after the creation of Israel. They must be allowed to return to their homeland.
ANTI-SEMITISM VS. CRITIQUES OF ISRAEL
Jews Against the Occupation stands firmly against anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms. We see our historical struggle against anti- Semitism--a cornerstone of European white supremacist ideology--as inherently linked to all struggles against oppression. We therefore stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom.
Judaism is a cultural and religious identity, which must not be equated with Zionism, a political movement. Criticism of the state of Israel, its policies, or the idea of a Jewish state does not by itself constitute anti-Semitism. Dismissing critics of Israel or of Zionism as "anti-Semitic" is a means of stifling debate and masking the impact of the occupation.
Very quickly, since I'm going to be repeating myself for the umpteenth time for your benefit, I oppose the occupation, and would very much like to see it end. That can only come about in an accord that guarantees Israel's security. Until that time Israel is within its rights to provide for its own security, and while I do not condone all the actions Israel has taken in pursuit of this goal, I believe that I understand the Israeli perspective in a manner that you refuse to. I'm sorry that you are seemingly so angry that you cannot open yourself to looking at this issue from another perspective, since at the very least your inability to do so renders what you have to contribute to a conversation on the topic one-sided if not largely irrelevant to the practical reality of the conflict.
Also, from the wiki article on 242 you linked to:
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment 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;
The drafters were very careful to write "territories" and not "the territories" or "all territories" specifically because they recognized Israel's legitimate right to seek to modify it's borders based on security needs.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
This was very easy to find from a basic google search. If you cared to look beyond the academics that preach to the choir of which you are a part you might have come across it also:
Below are statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 – Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown – as well as others, in which the meaning and history of Resolution 242 are explained.
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.” The 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...
Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.
• Telegram from the Department of State to the U.S. Interests Section of the Spanish Embassy in the United Arab Republic summarizing Rostow’s conversation with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin:
Rostow said ... resolution required agreement on "secure and recognized" boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.
• Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pgs 894-96:
... the question remained, “To what boundaries should Israel withdraw?” On this issue, the American position was sharply drawn, and rested on a critical provision of the Armistice Agreements of 1949. Those agreements provided in each case that the Armistice Demarcation Line “is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims or positions of either party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” ... These paragraphs, which were put into the agreements at Arab insistence, were the legal foundation for the controversies over the wording of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Security Council Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967. ...
The agreement required by paragraph 3 of the resolution, the Security Council said, should establish “secure and recognized boundaries” between Israel and its neighbors “free from threats or acts of force,” to replace the Armistice Demarcation Lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June, 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines, as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the resolution, and in a condition of peace.
On this point, the American position has been the same under both the Johnson and the Nixon Administrations. The new and definitive political boundaries should not represent “the weight of conquest,” both Administrations have said; on the other hand, under the policy and language of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, and of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967, they need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines. ...
This is the legal significance of the omission of the word “the” from paragraph 1 (I) of the resolution, which 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.
• Jerusalem Post, “The truth about 242,” Nov. 5, 1990:
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 ... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to “secure and recognized borders,” which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949. ...
The omission of the word “the” from the territorial clause of the Resolution was one of its most hotly-debated and fundamental features. The U.S., Great Britain, the Netherlands, and many other countries worked hard for five and a half months in 1967 to keep the word “the” and the idea it represents out of the resolution. Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from “the” territories or “all the territories” occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. ...
Those who claim that Resolution 242 is ambiguous on the point are either ignorant of the history of its negotiation or simply taking a convenient tactical position.
• The New Republic, “Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies,” Oct. 21, 1991:
Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.
• The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991:
Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.”
• The Wall Street Journal, “Peace still depends on the two Palestines,” April 27, 1988:
... Resolution 242 establishes three principles about the territorial aspect of the peace-making process:
1) Israel can occupy and administer the territories it occupied during the Six-Day War until the Arabs make peace.
2) When peace agreements are reached, they should delineate “secure and recognized” boundaries to which Israel would withdraw.
3) Those boundaries could differ from the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949.
• Institute for National Strategic Studies, “The Future of Palestine,” November 1993:
The second territorial provision of Resolution 242 is that while Israel should agree to withdraw from some of theterritories it occupied in 1967, it need not withdraw from all those territories. The Resolution states that there should be "withdrawal of Israeli's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Five and a half months of vigorous diplomacy, public and private, make it very clear why the wording of the sentence took the form it did. Motion after motion proposed to insert the words "the" or "all the" before the word "territories." They were all defeated, until finally the Soviet Union and the Arab states accepted the language as the best they could get.
Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.
• American Foreign Policy Interests, 1988:
The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. The Arab states urged such language; the Soviet Union proposed such a resolution to the Security Council in June 1967, and Yugoslavia and other nations made a similar proposal to the special session of the General Assembly that followed the adjournment of the Security Council. But those views were rejected. Instead, Resolution 242 endorses the principle of the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and juxtaposes the principle that every state in the area is entitled to live in peace within “secure and recognized boundaries.” ...
The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines. I refer to the English text of the resolution. The French and Soviet texts differ from the English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative. In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.
• Christian Science Monitor, “Middle East peace prospects,” July 9, 1985:
... all parties are apparently in agreement that the basis for negotiations would be Resolutions 242 and 338 adopted by the UN Security Council. These resolutions, although often referred to in the news media, are inadequately analyzed or explained. I shall attempt to provide a measure of enlightenment.
* Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.
* If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations.
* Any ambiguity in this regard has been resolved by Resolution 338, unanimously adopted by the Security Council on Oct. 22, 1973. Resolution 338 reaffirms Resolution 242 in all its parts and requires negotiations between the parties concerned aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
* Is Resolution 242 self-executing? The answer is no. Negotiations are necessary to put flesh on the bones of the resolution, as Resolution 338 acknowledges.
* Is Israel's withdrawal confined to “minor” border rectifications? No. Resolution 242 reaffirms the right of every area state ‘to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.’
* How are secure and recognized boundaries to be achieved to enable every state to live in peace free from threats or acts of force? By negotiation, agreement, and accepted settlement.
• U.S. Senate, The Arab-Israeli Dispute, 6, pgs 14-16, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 50:
At no time in my meetings with Foreign Minister Riad did I give him such an assurance [of a complete Israeli withdrawal]. It would have been foolish to make such an assurance, when the whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries.
• New York Times, "What Goldberg didn't say," letters, March 12, 1980:
Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. I wanted to make clear that Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank.
In a number of speeches at the U.N. in 1967, I repeatedly stated that the armistice lines fixed after 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was particularly true of Jerusalem. At no time in these many speeches did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory.
Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.
• In My Way, pgs 226-27, qtd. in the American Journal of International Law, “The illegality of the Arab attack on Israel of October 6, 1973,” Eugene Rostow:
[Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.
• Jerusalem Post, Jan. 23, 1970, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
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.
J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:
• Hearings on the Middle East before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 92nd Congress, 1st Session 187 (1971), qtd. in the American Journal of International Law, “The illegality of the Arab attack on Israel of October 6, 1973,” Eugene Rostow:
The provision of Resolution 242 which bears most directly on the question which you raised, Congressman, is subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the resolution, which envisages “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
The language “from territories” was regarded at the time of the adoption of the resolution as of high consequence because the proposal put forward by those espousing the Egyptian case was withdrawal from “the territories.” In the somewhat minute debate which frequently characterizes the period before the adoption of a United Nations resolution, the article “the” was regarded of considerable significance because its inclusion would seem to imply withdrawal from all territories which Israel had not occupied prior to the June war, but was at the present time occupying.
Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Byrnzie, I'm not going to try to argue with you. I think that I'm a pretty reasonable guy. I keep telling you guys that I'm not trying to justify all the terrible things Israel does to the Palestinians, only to get you guys to wake up and realize that you are looking at one of the worlds most complex conflicts in black and white, which is an absurd way to look at it.....
I understand that a key tactic of supporters of Israel is to try and pretend that this conflict is incredibly complex in the hope that this will deter people from paying attention to it.
The truth is that this conflict isn't complex at all. The following is perfectly straightforward and unambiguous:
Norman Finkelstein:
'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'
The problem, as they see it, is that they can't trust the Palestinians not to use the West Bank and Gaza as bases to continue attacking them
In other words, what you mean is that as long as Palestinians exist then you will continue oppressing them and stealing their land until their is nothing left to threaten you? As I pointed out above, this is a tactic the Nazis used in their attempts to justify wiping out the Jews.
I seriously doubt that you are capable of the objectivity necessary here to try and see the situation from the Israeli perspective. At least nothing I've read that you've posted has suggested that you are. But if you really want to have a discussion about what can practically be done to resolve this conflict, rather than just venting like an angry, self-righteous, link-happy blowhard, I would love to have that conversation.
I've stated clearly above what needs to be done to resolve this conflict. Firstly, supporters of Israel's occupation, of which you are one can stop lying. Secondly, Israel can begin abiding by international law and stop behaving like a Satanic rogue state. Though I'm not sure whether the Americans will let them.
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment 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;
The drafters were very careful to write "territories" and not "the territories" or "all territories" specifically because they recognized Israel's legitimate right to seek to modify it's borders based on security needs.
You can try twisting it all you like. The fact remains that 'territories' that fall outside of the June '67 border are illegally occupied.
You forgot to include the preamble. I'll add it here again for your convenience:
The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment 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;
The drafters were very careful to write "territories" and not "the territories" or "all territories" specifically because they recognized Israel's legitimate right to seek to modify it's borders based on security needs.
You can try twisting it all you like. The fact remains that 'territories' that fall outside of the June '67 border are illegally occupied.
You forgot to include the preamble. I'll add it here again for your convenience:
The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"
I refer you to my earlier post where the five framers of the resolution all deal with your absurd reading. Since they wrote the damn thing, I think we can take them at their word.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
This was very easy to find from a basic google search. If you cared to look beyond the academics that preach to the choir of which you are a part you might have come across it also:
Lord Caradon: '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.” The can only be secure if they are recognized'
The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war", therefore in any 'peace talks' on this issue who do you think deserves to be in the driving seat? The Israeli's, who are the aggressor and occupier of territory seized illegally, or the Palestinians, whose territory is under discussion?
What we have is the Palestinians, international law, and the whole of the international community on one side, and Israel and the U.S on the other side. Unfortunately the U.S holds the power of automatic veto and has been abusing this veto power for the past 40 years in blocking any chance of a peaceful settlement.
Byrnzie, I'm not going to try to argue with you. I think that I'm a pretty reasonable guy. I keep telling you guys that I'm not trying to justify all the terrible things Israel does to the Palestinians, only to get you guys to wake up and realize that you are looking at one of the worlds most complex conflicts in black and white, which is an absurd way to look at it.....
I understand that a key tactic of supporters of Israel is to try and pretend that this conflict is complex in the hope that it this will deter people from paying attention to it.
The truth is that this conflict isn't complex at all. The following is perfectly straightforward and unambiguous:
Norman Finkelstein:
'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'
The problem, as they see it, is that they can't trust the Palestinians not to use the West Bank and Gaza as bases to continue attacking them
In other words, what you mean is that as long as Palestinians exist then you will continue oppressing them and stealing their land until their is nothing left to threaten you? As I pointed out above, this is a tactic the Nazis used in their attempts to justify wiping out the Jews.
I seriously doubt that you are capable of the objectivity necessary here to try and see the situation from the Israeli perspective. At least nothing I've read that you've posted has suggested that you are. But if you really want to have a discussion about what can practically be done to resolve this conflict, rather than just venting like an angry, self-righteous, link-happy blowhard, I would love to have that conversation.
I've stated clearly above what needs to be done to resolve this conflict. Firstly, supporters of Israel's occupation, of which you are one can stop lying. Secondly, Israel can begin abiding by international law and stop behaving like a Satanic rogue state. Though I'm not sure whether the Americans will let them.
You asked in another thread whether people find you annoying. Yes, I find you very annoying. You put words in my mouth. You accuse me of things that I'm not. You throw around inflammatory language when there is absolutely no need to. Honestly "Satanic rogue state"! You sound like George Bush for god's sake! Comparing Israel to the Nazis, that is as stupid, in my opinion, as it is insulting. And you never make your own argument. That's the worst thing. You just cut and paste what other people write. You have a brain of your own. Reason with it. I already know what Chomsky and Finkelstein think. I don't need to hear it from you over and over and over again.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war", therefore in any 'peace talks' on this issue who do you think deserves to be in the driving seat? The Israeli's, who are the aggressor and occupier of territory seized illegally, or the Palestinians, whose territory is under discussion?
What we have is the Palestinians, international law, and the whole of the international community on one side, and Israel and the U.S on the other side. Unfortunately the U.S holds the power of automatic veto and has been abusing this veto power for the past 40 years in blocking any chance of a peaceful settlement.
I am astounded at your ability to read selectively. The point in summary, since you seem to have cherry picked the lines that suit you, while ignoring everything else which cuts against your argument, is that Israel cannot simply keep all the territory it conquered, but it should not have to go back to the arbitrary '67 lines. Rather the final borders should be decided in a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, which is exactly what I said earlier. Saying that Israel should simply ignore its security concerns and withdraw to the '67 lines, as you have repeatedly done, not only ignores the fact that Israel has legitimate claims and concerns of its own, but flies in the face of the very UN resolution you cite so often.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I am astounded at your ability to read selectively. The point in summary, since you seem to have cherry picked the lines that suit you, while ignoring everything else which cuts against your argument, is that Israel cannot simply keep all the territory it conquered, but it should not have to go back to the arbitrary '67 lines. Rather the final borders should be decided in a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, which is exactly what I said earlier. Saying that Israel should simply ignore its security concerns and withdraw to the '67 lines, as you have repeatedly done, not only ignores the fact that Israel has legitimate claims and concerns of its own, but flies in the face of the very UN resolution you cite so often.
Only Israelis have a problem with United Nations Resolution 242. The whole of the international community - excluding the U.S - sees no problem with it. I wonder why that is?
As for Israel's security concerns, what about the Palestinians security concerns? What do you think should be done to protect Palestinians from further Israeli terrorism?
This was very easy to find from a basic google search. If you cared to look beyond the academics that preach to the choir of which you are a part you might have come across it also:
Lord Caradon: '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.” The can only be secure if they are recognized'
Thanks for supporting what I said already.
The quote in its entirety, and let this be a lesson to be wary of people that cite selectively:
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.” The 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.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I am astounded at your ability to read selectively. The point in summary, since you seem to have cherry picked the lines that suit you, while ignoring everything else which cuts against your argument, is that Israel cannot simply keep all the territory it conquered, but it should not have to go back to the arbitrary '67 lines. Rather the final borders should be decided in a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, which is exactly what I said earlier. Saying that Israel should simply ignore its security concerns and withdraw to the '67 lines, as you have repeatedly done, not only ignores the fact that Israel has legitimate claims and concerns of its own, but flies in the face of the very UN resolution you cite so often.
Only Israelis have a problem with United Nations Resolution 242. The whole of the international community - excluding the U.S - sees no problem with it. I wonder why that is?
As for Israel's security concerns, what about the Palestinians security concerns? What do you think should be done to protect Palestinians from further Israeli terrorism?
Israel has no problem with 242. What Israel does have a problem with is with your willful misreading of the resolution. It does not say that Israel must return all the land it conquered. It says that Israel should return some unspecified amount of the land it conquered as defined in a future agreement between the belligerant parties.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You asked in another thread whether people find you annoying. Yes, I find you very annoying. You put words in my mouth. You accuse me of things that I'm not. You throw around inflammatory language when there is absolutely no need to. Honestly "Satanic rogue state"! You sound like George Bush for god's sake! Comparing Israel to the Nazis, that is as stupid, in my opinion, as it is insulting. And you never make your own argument. That's the worst thing. You just cut and paste what other people write. You have a brain of your own. Reason with it. I already know what Chomsky and Finkelstein think. I don't need to hear it from you over and over and over again.
Check out the definition of 'rogue state' and you'll see that Israel fits the bill perfectly.
I've not accused you of anything that you're not. I said that you support the occupation, which you do. You admitted numerous times above that you think the settlements should remain for security reasons. The fact is that the settlements have no bearing on any security concerns whatsoever, and that, if anything, they merely exacerbate any security concerns. But you know this already. Therefore you're simply making excuses for the ongoing occupation, and so are a supporter of the occupation. It's not rocket science.
And I won't apologize for supporting what I say with facts.
Israel has no problem with 242. What Israel does have a problem with is with your willful misreading of the resolution. It does not say that Israel must return all the land it conquered. It says that Israel should return some unspecified amount of the land it conquered as defined in a future agreement between the belligerant parties.
Sure, keep chewing on that crumb.
Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
You asked in another thread whether people find you annoying. Yes, I find you very annoying. You put words in my mouth. You accuse me of things that I'm not. You throw around inflammatory language when there is absolutely no need to. Honestly "Satanic rogue state"! You sound like George Bush for god's sake! Comparing Israel to the Nazis, that is as stupid, in my opinion, as it is insulting. And you never make your own argument. That's the worst thing. You just cut and paste what other people write. You have a brain of your own. Reason with it. I already know what Chomsky and Finkelstein think. I don't need to hear it from you over and over and over again.
Check out the definition of 'rogue state' and you'll see that Israel fits the bill perfectly.
I've not accused you of anything that you're not. I said that you support the occupation, which you do. You admitted numerous times above that you think the settlements should remain for security reasons. The fact is that the settlements have no bearing on any security concerns whatsoever, and that, if anything, they merely exacerbate any security concerns. But you know this already. Therefore you're simply making excuses for the ongoing occupation, and so are a supporter of the occupation. It's not rocket science.
And I won't apologize for supporting what I say with facts.
I think I know what I believe somewhat better than you do. I have said repeatedly that I do not support the occupation. So right there you have put words in my mouth and called me something I am not. I have said that Israel has a legitimate right, as per 242, to seek to alter its borders because of security concerns. This may involve retaining some settlements. I have never said that I support keeping all the settlements, in fact I have said that I think building the settlements in the first place was a giant mistake. So there again you have misrepresented me. And if you think that Israel has no security concerns with regard to the settlements along the '67 line, then you are simply woefully ignorant of something as basic to the conflict as geography. Israel is nine miles wide at its narrowest point, which also happens to be where most of the country's population lives, where the economy is centered, and where the country's only international airport is located. The settlements along the '67 line occupy hilltops that overlook this entire area and are of immense strategic importance. To say that Israel has no legitimate security concerns with regard to this area betrays a basic illiteracy when it comes to this conflict. Finally, the thoughts of Noam Chomsky do not constitute facts. They are opinions. You clearly attach a great deal of weight to these opinions. I do not. My problem is that you fall back on an argument from authority rather than making an argument of your own.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Israel has no problem with 242. What Israel does have a problem with is with your willful misreading of the resolution. It does not say that Israel must return all the land it conquered. It says that Israel should return some unspecified amount of the land it conquered as defined in a future agreement between the belligerant parties.
Sure, keep chewing on that crumb.
Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
I don't know. I wish I did. Let me ask you something. Why can't Jews live in the West Bank?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I have said that Israel has a legitimate right, as per 242, to seek to alter its borders because of security concerns.
And I'm saying, in line with U.N 242, that Israel has no right to any territory it seized in June 1967. I also say that placing civilians in areas that supposedly merit a security concern does not constitute protecting those same civilians. You don't deal with a security issue by placing civilians in the line of fire. Your argument is completely redundant.
Israel is nine miles wide at its narrowest point, which also happens to be where most of the country's population lives, where the economy is centered, and where the country's only international airport is located. The settlements along the '67 line occupy hilltops that overlook this entire area and are of immense strategic importance. To say that Israel has no legitimate security concerns with regard to this area betrays a basic illiteracy when it comes to this conflict.
Sure, and these areas, including the Golan heights, also happen to be where the majority of the regions water comes from. They are illegally occupied.
I have said that Israel has a legitimate right, as per 242, to seek to alter its borders because of security concerns.
And I'm saying, in line with U.N 242, that Israel has no right to any territory it seized in June 1967. I also say that placing civilians in areas that supposedly merit a security concern does not constitute protecting those same civilians. You don't deal with a security issue by placing civilians in the line of fire. Your argument is completely redundant.
Israel is nine miles wide at its narrowest point, which also happens to be where most of the country's population lives, where the economy is centered, and where the country's only international airport is located. The settlements along the '67 line occupy hilltops that overlook this entire area and are of immense strategic importance. To say that Israel has no legitimate security concerns with regard to this area betrays a basic illiteracy when it comes to this conflict.
Sure, and these areas, including the Golan heights, also happen to be where the majority of the regions water comes from. They are illegally occupied.
I'm tired of the 242 argument. I've posted extensive interviews with the drafters of the resolution all of whom said explicitly that Israel is not required by the resolution to withdraw from all of the conquered territory, so I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point, unless you think you understand the resolution better than the people who wrote it.
I have no idea why you've brought up the Golan heights. The fact that you did so simply further exposes the fact that you don't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict. The area I was referring to is the coastal plain, which is a coastal lowland and is not in any way a water source. The golan heights are at the extreme north of the country. I made no reference to them at all. They have nothing to do with the Palestinians either, since they were conquered from Syria. As for being an important water source, that's true, but the issue of water with regard to the Palestinians has more to do with aquafers in the West Bank than it does with the Golan, to which the Palestinians have no claim whatsoever (Syria does, but not the Palestinians).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Let me ask you something. Why can't Jews live in the West Bank?
They do. 50,0000 Jews live in the West bank in illegal settlements.
I am a zionist. I do not support the settlements. There is no contradiction there. My question is why do you find it morally acceptable for the Palestinians to demand a state that is juden-rein?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
Is that how you try and justify 40 years of brutal occupation, war crimes, and crimes against humanity?
It's interesting that the Nazis used similar tactics. They claimed that they were under attack from Jewish terrorists.
On the subject of terrorism, just last year Israel attacked a defenseless civilian population and murdered an estimated 800 civilians and 25 police recruits. So who are the terrorists?
You said it:
Israel has no right to retain any of the settlements. It only has the right to get the fuck out of the occupied territories. The Palestinians have already conceded over 80% of their land, and yet you accuse them of being rejectionists.
Once again you try and turn reality on it's head.
Michael Neumann:
'Zionism has never been a movement for the defence of the Jewish religion.; on the contrary, many of the most religious Jews abhor it. It was never even a movement in defence of some cultural entity; when the Zionist movement began, Jews had no common language and their traditions were in many cases wildly dissimilar or simply abandoned altogether. Zionism was a movement that advocated not so much the defense of an ethnic group, as the formation of such a group in Palestine, where those who were thought to fit a certain semi-racial category were to find refuge. It was a lovely dream where all Jews would live happily together and, with typical Wilsonian obliviousness, no one seemed to notice that those who did not pass ethnic muster had no place in this fantasy. If they were to be tolerated, welcomed, even loved, it was to be at the pleasure of the Jews. Of that there could be no mistake. This is exactly the sort of vulnerable subordination that Jews, quite understandably, were trying to escape. "Trust us, we'll be nice" is not a promise endorsed by the historical record.
Zionists respond with fury when their movement is identified with racism. Many ethnic supremacists do. They protest that they do not advocate their own superiority, but simply want a land or culture of their own. But that is of necessity a land where one race is guaranteed supremacy: whether or not this is on grounds of intrinsic superiority hardly matters. And that such movements and attitudes gain respectability is not the fault of the Zionists, much less of the Jews, but of an idiotically false tolerance of ethnic nationalism....
...Zionism was from the start an ill-considered and menacing experiment in ethnic nationalism. Neither history nor religion could justify it. The Jews had no claim to Palestine and no right to build a state there. Their growing need for refuge may have provided some limited, inadequate, short-term moral sustenance for the Zionist project, but it could not render that project legitimate. The mere fact of later suffering cannot retroactively convert a wrong into a right: my attempt to usurp your land does not become legitimate simply because I am wrongly beaten by someone else, far away, when my project is near completion. Nor did the well founded desperation of the Jews during the Nazi era provide any justification for Zionism; at most it provided an excuse. If someone is murdering my family in Germany, that does not entitle me to your house in Boston, or my "people" to your country. All Jews fleeing Hitler were indeed entitled to some refuge. One might even suppose that it was the obligation of the whole world, including the Palestinians, to do what they could to provide such refuge. But this is not the whole story.
For one thing, those with ample means to provide refuge, and those who are responsible for the need, have by far the greater share of responsibility. The Palestinians fell into neither category. Even more important, there is an enormous difference between providing refuge and providing a sovereign state. No amount of danger or suffering requires this, and indeed it may conflict with the demand for refuge. Simply to control one's own affairs isn't always the safest alternative. Arguably, for instance, the Jews were safer in the United States, where they are not sovereign, than they ever were in Israel. This is not only a fact but was always a reasonable expectation, so the need for refuge is also no basis for Zionism...
If there are any great lessons to be learned from the Nazi era , they are to watch out for fascism, racism, and ethnic nationalism. Supporting Israel hardly embodies these lessons.'
If you are really so afraid of the threat of terrorism then you should be a vocal supporter of an end to the occupation, such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Neumann, and these guys: http://www.jatonyc.org/
Jews Against the Occupation
Our Mission
Jews Against the Occupation is an organization of progressive, secular and religious Jews of all ages throughout the New York City area advocating peace through justice for Palestine and Israel. Our points of unity are as follows:
NO OCCUPATION IN OUR NAME
We as American Jews reject the Israeli government assertion that it is "necessary" to subjugate Palestinians for the sake of keeping Jews safe. We assert that security can only come from mutual respect, and that the occupation of Palestine is only worsening the position of Jews in the Middle East and around the world.
RESTORE HUMAN & CIVIL RIGHTS
The Israeli military fires bone-crushing rubber bullets and live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian civilians engaged in peaceful protest, failing to distinguish between peaceful and violent resistance. The Israeli government has been demolishing Palestinian houses and crops in the Occupied Territories, while allowing Jewish settlers -- many of them American -- to illegally occupy the same land.
END U.S. AID TO ISRAEL
The U.S. government provides more aid to Israel than to any other country—the vast majority of this is for military purposes. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have propped up the occupation and fueled the Israeli government’s war machine (as well as disguising the occupation’s true cost). This aid must end.
STOP ECONOMIC ATTACKS ON PALESTINE
The Israeli government has attacked the Palestinian economy by: closing Palestinian banks; imposing extreme taxes on business; withdrawing operating licenses; destroying industrial equipment; bulldozing farmland and banning fishing; restricting workers' movement; controlling the export of Palestinian goods; closing the borders of the Occupied Territories; and refusing to fund infrastructure like water and electricity -- even in Arab villages within Israel.
LET PALESTINIANS RETURN HOME
Thousands of Palestinians were driven out of their houses and off of their farms during and after the creation of Israel. They must be allowed to return to their homeland.
ANTI-SEMITISM VS. CRITIQUES OF ISRAEL
Jews Against the Occupation stands firmly against anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms. We see our historical struggle against anti- Semitism--a cornerstone of European white supremacist ideology--as inherently linked to all struggles against oppression. We therefore stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom.
Judaism is a cultural and religious identity, which must not be equated with Zionism, a political movement. Criticism of the state of Israel, its policies, or the idea of a Jewish state does not by itself constitute anti-Semitism. Dismissing critics of Israel or of Zionism as "anti-Semitic" is a means of stifling debate and masking the impact of the occupation.
Thank you for letting me know what Mr. Neumann thinks. I respectfully disagree.
242 says nothing of the sort. And the only ambiguity regarding the final borders lies in whether Israel should finally withdraw to the 1949 Armistice lines, or to the 1948 borders as outlined by the U.N Partition plan.
Resolution 242 emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... lution_242
Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:
"It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted."
Very quickly, since I'm going to be repeating myself for the umpteenth time for your benefit, I oppose the occupation, and would very much like to see it end. That can only come about in an accord that guarantees Israel's security. Until that time Israel is within its rights to provide for its own security, and while I do not condone all the actions Israel has taken in pursuit of this goal, I believe that I understand the Israeli perspective in a manner that you refuse to. I'm sorry that you are seemingly so angry that you cannot open yourself to looking at this issue from another perspective, since at the very least your inability to do so renders what you have to contribute to a conversation on the topic one-sided if not largely irrelevant to the practical reality of the conflict.
Also, from the wiki article on 242 you linked to:
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment 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;
The drafters were very careful to write "territories" and not "the territories" or "all territories" specifically because they recognized Israel's legitimate right to seek to modify it's borders based on security needs.
Below are statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 – Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown – as well as others, in which the meaning and history of Resolution 242 are explained.
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.” The 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...
Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.
• Telegram from the Department of State to the U.S. Interests Section of the Spanish Embassy in the United Arab Republic summarizing Rostow’s conversation with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin:
Rostow said ... resolution required agreement on "secure and recognized" boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.
• Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pgs 894-96:
... the question remained, “To what boundaries should Israel withdraw?” On this issue, the American position was sharply drawn, and rested on a critical provision of the Armistice Agreements of 1949. Those agreements provided in each case that the Armistice Demarcation Line “is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims or positions of either party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” ... These paragraphs, which were put into the agreements at Arab insistence, were the legal foundation for the controversies over the wording of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Security Council Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967. ...
The agreement required by paragraph 3 of the resolution, the Security Council said, should establish “secure and recognized boundaries” between Israel and its neighbors “free from threats or acts of force,” to replace the Armistice Demarcation Lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June, 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines, as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the resolution, and in a condition of peace.
On this point, the American position has been the same under both the Johnson and the Nixon Administrations. The new and definitive political boundaries should not represent “the weight of conquest,” both Administrations have said; on the other hand, under the policy and language of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, and of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967, they need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines. ...
This is the legal significance of the omission of the word “the” from paragraph 1 (I) of the resolution, which 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.
• Jerusalem Post, “The truth about 242,” Nov. 5, 1990:
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 ... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to “secure and recognized borders,” which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949. ...
The omission of the word “the” from the territorial clause of the Resolution was one of its most hotly-debated and fundamental features. The U.S., Great Britain, the Netherlands, and many other countries worked hard for five and a half months in 1967 to keep the word “the” and the idea it represents out of the resolution. Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from “the” territories or “all the territories” occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. ...
Those who claim that Resolution 242 is ambiguous on the point are either ignorant of the history of its negotiation or simply taking a convenient tactical position.
• The New Republic, “Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies,” Oct. 21, 1991:
Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.
• The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991:
Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.”
• The Wall Street Journal, “Peace still depends on the two Palestines,” April 27, 1988:
... Resolution 242 establishes three principles about the territorial aspect of the peace-making process:
1) Israel can occupy and administer the territories it occupied during the Six-Day War until the Arabs make peace.
2) When peace agreements are reached, they should delineate “secure and recognized” boundaries to which Israel would withdraw.
3) Those boundaries could differ from the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949.
• Institute for National Strategic Studies, “The Future of Palestine,” November 1993:
The second territorial provision of Resolution 242 is that while Israel should agree to withdraw from some of theterritories it occupied in 1967, it need not withdraw from all those territories. The Resolution states that there should be "withdrawal of Israeli's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Five and a half months of vigorous diplomacy, public and private, make it very clear why the wording of the sentence took the form it did. Motion after motion proposed to insert the words "the" or "all the" before the word "territories." They were all defeated, until finally the Soviet Union and the Arab states accepted the language as the best they could get.
Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.
• American Foreign Policy Interests, 1988:
The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. The Arab states urged such language; the Soviet Union proposed such a resolution to the Security Council in June 1967, and Yugoslavia and other nations made a similar proposal to the special session of the General Assembly that followed the adjournment of the Security Council. But those views were rejected. Instead, Resolution 242 endorses the principle of the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and juxtaposes the principle that every state in the area is entitled to live in peace within “secure and recognized boundaries.” ...
The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines. I refer to the English text of the resolution. The French and Soviet texts differ from the English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative. In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.
• Christian Science Monitor, “Middle East peace prospects,” July 9, 1985:
... all parties are apparently in agreement that the basis for negotiations would be Resolutions 242 and 338 adopted by the UN Security Council. These resolutions, although often referred to in the news media, are inadequately analyzed or explained. I shall attempt to provide a measure of enlightenment.
* Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.
* If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations.
* Any ambiguity in this regard has been resolved by Resolution 338, unanimously adopted by the Security Council on Oct. 22, 1973. Resolution 338 reaffirms Resolution 242 in all its parts and requires negotiations between the parties concerned aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
* Is Resolution 242 self-executing? The answer is no. Negotiations are necessary to put flesh on the bones of the resolution, as Resolution 338 acknowledges.
* Is Israel's withdrawal confined to “minor” border rectifications? No. Resolution 242 reaffirms the right of every area state ‘to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.’
* How are secure and recognized boundaries to be achieved to enable every state to live in peace free from threats or acts of force? By negotiation, agreement, and accepted settlement.
• U.S. Senate, The Arab-Israeli Dispute, 6, pgs 14-16, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 50:
At no time in my meetings with Foreign Minister Riad did I give him such an assurance [of a complete Israeli withdrawal]. It would have been foolish to make such an assurance, when the whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries.
• New York Times, "What Goldberg didn't say," letters, March 12, 1980:
Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. I wanted to make clear that Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank.
In a number of speeches at the U.N. in 1967, I repeatedly stated that the armistice lines fixed after 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was particularly true of Jerusalem. At no time in these many speeches did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory.
Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.
• In My Way, pgs 226-27, qtd. in the American Journal of International Law, “The illegality of the Arab attack on Israel of October 6, 1973,” Eugene Rostow:
[Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.
• Jerusalem Post, Jan. 23, 1970, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
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.
J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:
• Hearings on the Middle East before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 92nd Congress, 1st Session 187 (1971), qtd. in the American Journal of International Law, “The illegality of the Arab attack on Israel of October 6, 1973,” Eugene Rostow:
The provision of Resolution 242 which bears most directly on the question which you raised, Congressman, is subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the resolution, which envisages “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
The language “from territories” was regarded at the time of the adoption of the resolution as of high consequence because the proposal put forward by those espousing the Egyptian case was withdrawal from “the territories.” In the somewhat minute debate which frequently characterizes the period before the adoption of a United Nations resolution, the article “the” was regarded of considerable significance because its inclusion would seem to imply withdrawal from all territories which Israel had not occupied prior to the June war, but was at the present time occupying.
Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement.
I understand that a key tactic of supporters of Israel is to try and pretend that this conflict is incredibly complex in the hope that this will deter people from paying attention to it.
The truth is that this conflict isn't complex at all. The following is perfectly straightforward and unambiguous:
Norman Finkelstein:
'The broad consensus on the "final status" issues of borders, East Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees forms the bedrock of the two-state settlement to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. As understood by the whole of the International community, apart from Israel and the United States (and this or that Pacific atoll), such a settlement calls for full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories captured in the June 1967 war, the formation of an independent Palestinian state in these territories in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security with it's neighbours, and a resolution of the refugee question that acknowledges the Palestinian right of return. A December 2005 U.N General Assembly resolution listed these principles and components for a "peaceful settlement" of the conflict: "inadmissability of the aquisition of territory by war"; "illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem"; "right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders"; "two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders"; "withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"; "realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent state"; "resolving the problem of Palestine refugees in conformity with...resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948." The resolution passed 156-6 (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 9 abstentions. According to U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton, the General Assembly's overwhelming approval of this and related resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict showed "why many people say the U.N is not really useful in solving actual problems." Truly it is cause for perplexity why the world won't follow the useful lead of the United States and Palau.'
In other words, what you mean is that as long as Palestinians exist then you will continue oppressing them and stealing their land until their is nothing left to threaten you? As I pointed out above, this is a tactic the Nazis used in their attempts to justify wiping out the Jews.
I've stated clearly above what needs to be done to resolve this conflict. Firstly, supporters of Israel's occupation, of which you are one can stop lying. Secondly, Israel can begin abiding by international law and stop behaving like a Satanic rogue state. Though I'm not sure whether the Americans will let them.
You can try twisting it all you like. The fact remains that 'territories' that fall outside of the June '67 border are illegally occupied.
You forgot to include the preamble. I'll add it here again for your convenience:
The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"
I refer you to my earlier post where the five framers of the resolution all deal with your absurd reading. Since they wrote the damn thing, I think we can take them at their word.
Lord Caradon:
'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.” The can only be secure if they are recognized'
Thanks for supporting what I said already.
What we have is the Palestinians, international law, and the whole of the international community on one side, and Israel and the U.S on the other side. Unfortunately the U.S holds the power of automatic veto and has been abusing this veto power for the past 40 years in blocking any chance of a peaceful settlement.
You asked in another thread whether people find you annoying. Yes, I find you very annoying. You put words in my mouth. You accuse me of things that I'm not. You throw around inflammatory language when there is absolutely no need to. Honestly "Satanic rogue state"! You sound like George Bush for god's sake! Comparing Israel to the Nazis, that is as stupid, in my opinion, as it is insulting. And you never make your own argument. That's the worst thing. You just cut and paste what other people write. You have a brain of your own. Reason with it. I already know what Chomsky and Finkelstein think. I don't need to hear it from you over and over and over again.
I am astounded at your ability to read selectively. The point in summary, since you seem to have cherry picked the lines that suit you, while ignoring everything else which cuts against your argument, is that Israel cannot simply keep all the territory it conquered, but it should not have to go back to the arbitrary '67 lines. Rather the final borders should be decided in a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, which is exactly what I said earlier. Saying that Israel should simply ignore its security concerns and withdraw to the '67 lines, as you have repeatedly done, not only ignores the fact that Israel has legitimate claims and concerns of its own, but flies in the face of the very UN resolution you cite so often.
Only Israelis have a problem with United Nations Resolution 242. The whole of the international community - excluding the U.S - sees no problem with it. I wonder why that is?
As for Israel's security concerns, what about the Palestinians security concerns? What do you think should be done to protect Palestinians from further Israeli terrorism?
The quote in its entirety, and let this be a lesson to be wary of people that cite selectively:
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.” The 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.
Israel has no problem with 242. What Israel does have a problem with is with your willful misreading of the resolution. It does not say that Israel must return all the land it conquered. It says that Israel should return some unspecified amount of the land it conquered as defined in a future agreement between the belligerant parties.
Check out the definition of 'rogue state' and you'll see that Israel fits the bill perfectly.
I've not accused you of anything that you're not. I said that you support the occupation, which you do. You admitted numerous times above that you think the settlements should remain for security reasons. The fact is that the settlements have no bearing on any security concerns whatsoever, and that, if anything, they merely exacerbate any security concerns. But you know this already. Therefore you're simply making excuses for the ongoing occupation, and so are a supporter of the occupation. It's not rocket science.
And I won't apologize for supporting what I say with facts.
Sure, keep chewing on that crumb.
Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?
I think I know what I believe somewhat better than you do. I have said repeatedly that I do not support the occupation. So right there you have put words in my mouth and called me something I am not. I have said that Israel has a legitimate right, as per 242, to seek to alter its borders because of security concerns. This may involve retaining some settlements. I have never said that I support keeping all the settlements, in fact I have said that I think building the settlements in the first place was a giant mistake. So there again you have misrepresented me. And if you think that Israel has no security concerns with regard to the settlements along the '67 line, then you are simply woefully ignorant of something as basic to the conflict as geography. Israel is nine miles wide at its narrowest point, which also happens to be where most of the country's population lives, where the economy is centered, and where the country's only international airport is located. The settlements along the '67 line occupy hilltops that overlook this entire area and are of immense strategic importance. To say that Israel has no legitimate security concerns with regard to this area betrays a basic illiteracy when it comes to this conflict. Finally, the thoughts of Noam Chomsky do not constitute facts. They are opinions. You clearly attach a great deal of weight to these opinions. I do not. My problem is that you fall back on an argument from authority rather than making an argument of your own.
I don't know. I wish I did. Let me ask you something. Why can't Jews live in the West Bank?
And I'm saying, in line with U.N 242, that Israel has no right to any territory it seized in June 1967. I also say that placing civilians in areas that supposedly merit a security concern does not constitute protecting those same civilians. You don't deal with a security issue by placing civilians in the line of fire. Your argument is completely redundant.
Sure, and these areas, including the Golan heights, also happen to be where the majority of the regions water comes from. They are illegally occupied.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/1 ... 29288.html
'The area is also home to crucial water sources, a profitable Israeli winery, and Israeli settlements with about 18,000 residents.'
They do. 50,0000 Jews live in the West bank in illegal settlements.
I'm tired of the 242 argument. I've posted extensive interviews with the drafters of the resolution all of whom said explicitly that Israel is not required by the resolution to withdraw from all of the conquered territory, so I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point, unless you think you understand the resolution better than the people who wrote it.
I have no idea why you've brought up the Golan heights. The fact that you did so simply further exposes the fact that you don't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict. The area I was referring to is the coastal plain, which is a coastal lowland and is not in any way a water source. The golan heights are at the extreme north of the country. I made no reference to them at all. They have nothing to do with the Palestinians either, since they were conquered from Syria. As for being an important water source, that's true, but the issue of water with regard to the Palestinians has more to do with aquafers in the West Bank than it does with the Golan, to which the Palestinians have no claim whatsoever (Syria does, but not the Palestinians).
I am a zionist. I do not support the settlements. There is no contradiction there. My question is why do you find it morally acceptable for the Palestinians to demand a state that is juden-rein?