Oh, and by the way, funny historical point given Byrnzie's position...the PLO rejected resolution 242 when it was first drafted and accepted by the UN, specifically because the resolution DID NOT call for Israel to withdraw to the '67 lines. It is only now, after supporters of the Palestinians, such as Byrnzie, have managed to convince people that the resolution says what it actually does not say, that the Palestinians accept it.
The whole of the international community calls for implementation of 242 as it relates to a withdrawal to the '67 border. The only countries opposed to it are Israel and the U.S.
'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.
Good read...so what do YOU have to say Byrnzie? At best the wikipedia article can be used to make the argument that the resolution is ambiguous. But that isn't the position you have been taking. You have said that the resolution clearly calls for a full withdrawal from ALL territories, but as even your own article makes clear it is not at all clear that that is what the resolution calls for. So, will you concede that you have been playing fast and lose with the facts?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Byrnzie, just give it up. I believe that I've shown convincingly that your claims regarding the meaning of the resolution are false. The best you can do in this argument is to assert that the resolution is ambiguous, and can be read either way (I don't agree with this argument, but it can be made), but even that is a loss for you, since you have been so vocal in claiming that the resolution is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR in calling for a FULL WITHDRAWAL TO THE '67 LINES, which is simply not the case.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Byrnzie, that bit you added to your last post doesn't even mention resolution 242. I'm going to keep you on point until you either offer up a credible argument or just admit that you were wrong.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Good read...so what do YOU have to say Byrnzie? At best the wikipedia article can be used to make the argument that the resolution is ambiguous. But that isn't the position you have been taking. You have said that the resolution clearly calls for a full withdrawal from ALL territories, but as even your own article makes clear it is not at all clear that that is what the resolution calls for. So, will you concede that you have been playing fast and lose with the facts?
It is perfectly clear what the resolution for. It emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and calls for Israel to withdraw from land occupied in the recent conflict - I.e, the 1967 war. It couldn't be any clearer.
Obviously you think the resolution suggests that it's up to Israel to decide how much land it gives back. You come on here trying to justify cleansing. Pretty despicable really.
I don't think it's up to Israel how much they give back. I think it is an issue to be resolved in negotiation between the two parties. That's what "secure and recognized" boundaries means. Have you even read the statements of the drafters, or even your own wiki article. The resolution sought for balance, attempting to neither give Israel the right to simply keep conquered land, hence the "inadmissibility" bit, BUT ALSO, that the '67 lines are not, and never were permanent borders, such that where Israel withdraws to is a matter for negotiation. That would be the "secure and recognized" part, and the reason why the resolution read "territories conquered" and not "all" or "the" territories conquered. The drafters were very clear about that point. Again, simply asserting that you are right is not an argument. Either address the issue or admit that you are wrong.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I don't think it's up to Israel how much they give back. I think it is an issue to be resolved in negotiation between the two parties. That's what "secure and recognized" boundaries means. Have you even read the statements of the drafters, or even your own wiki article. The resolution sought for balance, attempting to neither give Israel the right to simply keep conquered land, hence the "inadmissibility" bit, BUT ALSO, that the '67 lines are not, and never were permanent borders, such that where Israel withdraws to is a matter for negotiation. That would be the "secure and recognized" part, and the reason why the resolution read "territories conquered" and not "all" or "the" territories conquered. The drafters were very clear about that point. Again, simply asserting that you are right is not an argument. Either address the issue or admit that you are wrong.
'...Israel’s contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognised border to which Israel can withdraw, because the pre-1967 border was merely an armistice line. Moreover, since Resolution 242 calls for a ‘just and lasting peace’ that will allow ‘every state in the area [to] live in security’, Israel holds that it must be allowed to change the armistice line, either bilaterally or unilaterally, to make it secure before it ends the occupation. This is a specious argument for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.
In the course of a war launched by Arab countries that sought to prevent the implementation of the UN partition resolution, Israel enlarged its territory by 50 per cent. If it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, then the question now cannot conceivably be how much additional Palestinian territory Israel may confiscate, but rather how much of the territory it acquired in the course of the war of 1948 it is allowed to retain. At the very least, if ‘adjustments’ are to be made to the 1949 armistice line, these should be made on Israel’s side of that line, not the Palestinians’.
I think the Soviet delegate Vasily Kuznetsov hit the nail on the head here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... lution_242 " ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. ... make it possible for Israel itself arbitrarily to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its forces only to those lines it considers appropriate."
I think we need to consider the will of the international community. The vote at the U.N every year usually goes something along the lines of 156 - 6, with the U.S vetoing it, and Israel and Australia casting a 'No' vote along with a handful of tiny Pacific atolls who obviously are in no way whatsoever influenced by the U.S either politically or financially *Sarcasm*.
I agree with Henry Seigman in his article 'The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam':
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-sieg ... ocess-scam '...If it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, then the question now cannot conceivably be how much additional Palestinian territory Israel may confiscate, but rather how much of the territory it acquired in the course of the war of 1948 it is allowed to retain. At the very least, if ‘adjustments’ are to be made to the 1949 armistice line, these should be made on Israel’s side of that line, not the Palestinians’.
Your amazing! I'm actually in awe of how callous you are with facts, and how cynical! You just the other day posted a whole bit about how the UN partition plan was just a recommendation and not a binding resolution and how it has no lasting legal significance (this so as not to allow that the resolution grants any legitimacy to Israel's founding), and now, not two days later, you post an article claiming that the Palestinians are legally entitled to parts of Israel because it would have been theirs under the partition plan. This is really amazing! You seem to have found a way to hold two opposing views on the exact same topic at the same time! This is why I don't take you seriously when you talk about "facts." Because to you facts aren't really "facts" unless they support your point of view.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
For those who have a short memory (the previous post I mentioned was on the preceding page of this very same thread!) here is what Byrnzie previously posted...
Zionism asserts that its state was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. That is propaganda nonsense. The truth can be summarized as follows.
* In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
* By the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a recommendation – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.
* The General Assembly's recommendation never went to the Security Council for consideration because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
* So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.
The truth of the time was that the Zionist state had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those Zionism had dispossessed of their land and their rights. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.
And here is what he just wrote...
The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam
Henry Siegman
'...Israel’s contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognised border to which Israel can withdraw, because the pre-1967 border was merely an armistice line. Moreover, since Resolution 242 calls for a ‘just and lasting peace’ that will allow ‘every state in the area [to] live in security’, Israel holds that it must be allowed to change the armistice line, either bilaterally or unilaterally, to make it secure before it ends the occupation. This is a specious argument for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.
In the course of a war launched by Arab countries that sought to prevent the implementation of the UN partition resolution, Israel enlarged its territory by 50 per cent. If it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, then the question now cannot conceivably be how much additional Palestinian territory Israel may confiscate, but rather how much of the territory it acquired in the course of the war of 1948 it is allowed to retain. At the very least, if ‘adjustments’ are to be made to the 1949 armistice line, these should be made on Israel’s side of that line, not the Palestinians’.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Your amazing! I'm actually in awe of how callous you are with facts, and how cynical! You just the other day posted a whole bit about how the UN partition plan was just a recommendation and not a binding resolution and how it has no lasting legal significance (this so as not to allow that the resolution grants any legitimacy to Israel's founding), and now, not two days later, you post an article claiming that the Palestinians are legally entitled to parts of Israel because it would have been theirs under the partition plan. This is really amazing! You seem to have found a way to hold two opposing views on the exact same topic at the same time! This is why I don't take you seriously when you talk about "facts." Because to you facts aren't really "facts" unless they support your point of view.
Wow, look how excited Yosi gets when he thinks he has me on the back foot. I can almost see you frothing at the mouth behind your monitor.
Ok, I got. Translation..."Oh shit, I got caught with my pants down saying one thing and then on the next page of the very same thread saying exactly the opposite, so I'll make a quick joke, claim that I'll respond later (funny how this is the first time I've ever seen you do this), and hope that this particular thread is left to move down the board unnoticed."
I don't think so man. And I still haven't forgotten about 242, which you still haven't provided a satisfactory response to.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Ok, I got. Translation..."Oh shit, I got caught with my pants down saying one thing and then on the next page of the very same thread saying exactly the opposite, so I'll make a quick joke, claim that I'll respond later (funny how this is the first time I've ever seen you do this), and hope that this particular thread is left to move down the board unnoticed."
I don't think so man. And I still haven't forgotten about 242, which you still haven't provided a satisfactory response to.
You don't know me very well do you. Because I didn't respond to you swiftly enough yesterday you got all giddy and excited and made the smug assumption that I'd high-tailed it. It must be a thrill every minute in the fantasy world you live in.
Your amazing! I'm actually in awe of how callous you are with facts, and how cynical! You just the other day posted a whole bit about how the UN partition plan was just a recommendation and not a binding resolution and how it has no lasting legal significance (this so as not to allow that the resolution grants any legitimacy to Israel's founding), and now, not two days later, you post an article claiming that the Palestinians are legally entitled to parts of Israel because it would have been theirs under the partition plan. This is really amazing! You seem to have found a way to hold two opposing views on the exact same topic at the same time! This is why I don't take you seriously when you talk about "facts." Because to you facts aren't really "facts" unless they support your point of view.
These aren't opposing views. The Palestinians rejected the Partition plan because it proposed giving 56% of the land to the 20% Jewish population. The Partition plan was never formally ratified, and the other party has still refused to recognize Israel, although Israel went ahead and declared itself a state anyway. So, if Israel can declare itself a state based on 181 then there is no reason why the Palestinians can't retroactively claim the 'territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state' . The Resolution was never formally adopted, but at the same time it was never formally relinquished at the U.N and remained the de facto blueprint for any future negotiations, not to mention the platform from which Israel declared itself a state.
So, the Israelis are in the same position as the Palestinians with regard to the resolution. Either Israel accepts it and thereby legitimately declares itself a state, while at the same time recognizing the land allotted to the Palestinians by the resolution as legitimate, or it rejects it and nullifies any claim of legitimacy for itself. The Israeli's want the best of both worlds. Acceptance of the resolution as far it allows Israel to be recognized as a legitimate state, while dismissing the right of the Palestinians to the land which the resolution allotted them.
It's all swings and roundabouts as they say. It's called politics.
Ok, I got. Translation..."Oh shit, I got caught with my pants down saying one thing and then on the next page of the very same thread saying exactly the opposite, so I'll make a quick joke, claim that I'll respond later (funny how this is the first time I've ever seen you do this), and hope that this particular thread is left to move down the board unnoticed."
Did I respond to you yesterday or didn't I? Yes, I did. Your persistent personal comments against me are getting pretty fucking tiresome. You sound like the stereotypical brat in the school playground who's had his toys taken away.
(I'll try not to allow myself to get pulled into a juvenile slanging match, though of course I can see how this would benefit you and divert attention from any serious discussion about the issue at hand. I've debunked all of your gibberish already and so you have nothing else to offer other than personal insults. But you really aren't worth getting banned for).
I don't think so man. And I still haven't forgotten about 242, which you still haven't provided a satisfactory response to.
I provided a number of detailed responses which show that the whole of the international community supports a two-state settlement along the '67 border. I provided documentary evidence to show how Israel and the U.S stand alone in the world in blocking 242.
All you can give me is an over-drawn analysis of the absence of the word 'The'.
And as for what you deem to be satisfactory, along with who you choose to respect or not respect, you really aren't that important pal. I'd cut the smug, smarmy responses if I were you. You aren't making any friends around here - apart from the ever faithful Rebornfixer.
I generally don't hang around internet chat rooms to make friends. That's kind of pervy. As for responses, you haven't actually addressed the issue. Since you seem to have a short memory, you claimed that resolution 242 clearly called for Israel to withdraw to the '67 lines. I then provided clear evidence in the form of extensive quotes from the five main drafters of the resolution that showed that this is in fact explicitly not what the resolution calls for. You have yet to deal with the substance of this argument except to claim, without supporting evidence, that your reading is still correct. You did provide a wiki article which at best can be used to argue that the resolution is ambiguous, but that was not your original position. Furthermore, as is explained in the comments of the drafters that I posted, the process of writing the resolution was long and drawn out specifically because there was much disagreement over the exact wording to be used, which was understood by all parties to be determinative of the resolution's meaning. Talking about the fact that the resolution leaves out the word "the" preceding "territories," a point discussed at length by the drafters, is not semantics. It is the substantive heart of the matter, with which you have yet to deal.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
As for responses, you haven't actually addressed the issue. Since you seem to have a short memory, you claimed that resolution 242 clearly called for Israel to withdraw to the '67 lines. I then provided clear evidence in the form of extensive quotes from the five main drafters of the resolution that showed that this is in fact explicitly not what the resolution calls for.
It is what the resolution calls for, which is why I posted the comments from a number of signatories to the resolution which stated that they signed on condition that Israel make a full withdrawal from all the territories seized in the war. I also provided evidence which shows that the U.S and it's proxy Israel stand alone in the world in preventing the implementation of 242.
Talking about the fact that the resolution leaves out the word "the" preceding "territories," a point discussed at length by the drafters, is not semantics. It is the substantive heart of the matter, with which you have yet to deal.
No, it isn't the heart of the matter. It's just an excuse for Israel to reject the resolution and reject the will of the whole of the international community. The land stolen by Israel in June '67 is inadmissible. It doesn't belong to Israel. Not one inch. Stop trying to justify ethnic cleansing. If you claim to be a Jew then you of all people should know better. It really doesn't cast you in a good light.
Don't lecture me on what it means to be a Jew. And you call me arrogant. Israel does accept resolution 242. They always have. That bit about signatories is yet another example of you being disingenuous. As your own wiki article makes clear they did not sign "on the condition" that Israel return to the '67 borders. They made statements to the affect that this is how they would like the resolution to be understood, which would be TOTALLY UNNECESSARY if that was the clear meaning of the resolution. The only reason these countries felt the need to make these statements was because it was understood at the time that the resolution specifically DID NOT call for this. That is why the PLO rejected the resolution at the time of its signing. And I don't claim that the land belongs to Israel. Currently the land does not "belong" to anyone. That is why the territories are disputed. Final borders, as the drafters made clear over and over and over again, are a matter for Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate between themselves. Most people accept that the final borders will be very close to the '67 lines. That is my position, certainly. But I don't presume to preempt the outcome of peace negotiations, as you clearly do.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
From wiki: "Initially, the resolution was accepted by Egypt, Jordan and Israel but not by the Palestine Liberation Organization."
I think the focus here should be on the word 'initially', as the line you've quoted refers to the drafting process. So I'll ask you again, when has Israel accepted 242, and not cast a 'No' vote at the Security Council?
It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories - I repeat, all the territories - occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967.
The representatives from Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, as worded by the representative from Mali: "[Mali] wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text." The Russian representative Vasili Kuznetsov stated:
We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". It follows that the provision contained in that draft relating to the right of all States in the Near East "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries" cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war.[76]
Israel was the only country represented at the Security Council to express a contrary view.
From wiki: "Initially, the resolution was accepted by Egypt, Jordan and Israel but not by the Palestine Liberation Organization."
ok, they DID but do they now?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
PLO?? Shit theyre still around???? Fuck, fooled me again.....damn I need to stop living in a dillusional world.....or maybe just stop smoking pot....ahhhh, which one???? I'll just take another bong rip and worry about it tomorrow.........
PLO?? Shit theyre still around???? Fuck, fooled me again.....damn I need to stop living in a dillusional world.....or maybe just stop smoking pot....ahhhh, which one???? I'll just take another bong rip and worry about it tomorrow.........
its DELUSIONAL.`
i tried to leave it be but too many of you are getting it wrong. :wave:
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
PLO?? Shit theyre still around???? Fuck, fooled me again.....damn I need to stop living in a dillusional world.....or maybe just stop smoking pot....ahhhh, which one???? I'll just take another bong rip and worry about it tomorrow.........
its DELUSIONAL.`
i tried to leave it be but too many of you are getting it wrong. :wave:
For what its worth, I was getting it wrong on purpose. :P
PLO?? Shit theyre still around???? Fuck, fooled me again.....damn I need to stop living in a dillusional world.....or maybe just stop smoking pot....ahhhh, which one???? I'll just take another bong rip and worry about it tomorrow.........
its DELUSIONAL.`
i tried to leave it be but too many of you are getting it wrong. :wave:
For what its worth, I was getting it wrong on purpose. :P
for what its worth i think youre lying... not to mention a crap speller. :P
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
PLO?? Shit theyre still around???? Fuck, fooled me again.....damn I need to stop living in a dillusional world.....or maybe just stop smoking pot....ahhhh, which one???? I'll just take another bong rip and worry about it tomorrow.........
its DELUSIONAL.`
i tried to leave it be but too many of you are getting it wrong. :wave:
For what its worth, I was getting it wrong on purpose. :P
Comments
The whole of the international community calls for implementation of 242 as it relates to a withdrawal to the '67 border. The only countries opposed to it are Israel and the U.S.
'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.
It is perfectly clear what the resolution for. It emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and calls for Israel to withdraw from land occupied in the recent conflict - I.e, the 1967 war. It couldn't be any clearer.
Obviously you think the resolution suggests that it's up to Israel to decide how much land it gives back. You come on here trying to justify cleansing. Pretty despicable really.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-sieg ... ocess-scam
The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam
Henry Siegman
'...Israel’s contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognised border to which Israel can withdraw, because the pre-1967 border was merely an armistice line. Moreover, since Resolution 242 calls for a ‘just and lasting peace’ that will allow ‘every state in the area [to] live in security’, Israel holds that it must be allowed to change the armistice line, either bilaterally or unilaterally, to make it secure before it ends the occupation. This is a specious argument for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.
In the course of a war launched by Arab countries that sought to prevent the implementation of the UN partition resolution, Israel enlarged its territory by 50 per cent. If it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, then the question now cannot conceivably be how much additional Palestinian territory Israel may confiscate, but rather how much of the territory it acquired in the course of the war of 1948 it is allowed to retain. At the very least, if ‘adjustments’ are to be made to the 1949 armistice line, these should be made on Israel’s side of that line, not the Palestinians’.
I think the Soviet delegate Vasily Kuznetsov hit the nail on the head here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... lution_242
" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. ... make it possible for Israel itself arbitrarily to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its forces only to those lines it considers appropriate."
I think we need to consider the will of the international community. The vote at the U.N every year usually goes something along the lines of 156 - 6, with the U.S vetoing it, and Israel and Australia casting a 'No' vote along with a handful of tiny Pacific atolls who obviously are in no way whatsoever influenced by the U.S either politically or financially *Sarcasm*.
I agree with Henry Seigman in his article 'The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam':
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-sieg ... ocess-scam
'...If it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, then the question now cannot conceivably be how much additional Palestinian territory Israel may confiscate, but rather how much of the territory it acquired in the course of the war of 1948 it is allowed to retain. At the very least, if ‘adjustments’ are to be made to the 1949 armistice line, these should be made on Israel’s side of that line, not the Palestinians’.
Zionism asserts that its state was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. That is propaganda nonsense. The truth can be summarized as follows.
* In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
* By the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a recommendation – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.
* The General Assembly's recommendation never went to the Security Council for consideration because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
* So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.
The truth of the time was that the Zionist state had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those Zionism had dispossessed of their land and their rights. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.
And here is what he just wrote...
The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam
Henry Siegman
'...Israel’s contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognised border to which Israel can withdraw, because the pre-1967 border was merely an armistice line. Moreover, since Resolution 242 calls for a ‘just and lasting peace’ that will allow ‘every state in the area [to] live in security’, Israel holds that it must be allowed to change the armistice line, either bilaterally or unilaterally, to make it secure before it ends the occupation. This is a specious argument for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognised the remaining Palestinian territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it mapped the borders of that territory with great precision. Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principles that grant statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in its implementation.
In the course of a war launched by Arab countries that sought to prevent the implementation of the UN partition resolution, Israel enlarged its territory by 50 per cent. If it is illegal to acquire territory as a result of war, then the question now cannot conceivably be how much additional Palestinian territory Israel may confiscate, but rather how much of the territory it acquired in the course of the war of 1948 it is allowed to retain. At the very least, if ‘adjustments’ are to be made to the 1949 armistice line, these should be made on Israel’s side of that line, not the Palestinians’.
Wow, look how excited Yosi gets when he thinks he has me on the back foot. I can almost see you frothing at the mouth behind your monitor.
I'll get back to this thread in a few hours.
I don't think so man. And I still haven't forgotten about 242, which you still haven't provided a satisfactory response to.
You don't know me very well do you. Because I didn't respond to you swiftly enough yesterday you got all giddy and excited and made the smug assumption that I'd high-tailed it. It must be a thrill every minute in the fantasy world you live in.
These aren't opposing views. The Palestinians rejected the Partition plan because it proposed giving 56% of the land to the 20% Jewish population. The Partition plan was never formally ratified, and the other party has still refused to recognize Israel, although Israel went ahead and declared itself a state anyway. So, if Israel can declare itself a state based on 181 then there is no reason why the Palestinians can't retroactively claim the 'territory outside the new state’s borders as the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population on which they were entitled to establish their own state' . The Resolution was never formally adopted, but at the same time it was never formally relinquished at the U.N and remained the de facto blueprint for any future negotiations, not to mention the platform from which Israel declared itself a state.
So, the Israelis are in the same position as the Palestinians with regard to the resolution. Either Israel accepts it and thereby legitimately declares itself a state, while at the same time recognizing the land allotted to the Palestinians by the resolution as legitimate, or it rejects it and nullifies any claim of legitimacy for itself. The Israeli's want the best of both worlds. Acceptance of the resolution as far it allows Israel to be recognized as a legitimate state, while dismissing the right of the Palestinians to the land which the resolution allotted them.
It's all swings and roundabouts as they say. It's called politics.
I provided a number of detailed responses which show that the whole of the international community supports a two-state settlement along the '67 border. I provided documentary evidence to show how Israel and the U.S stand alone in the world in blocking 242.
All you can give me is an over-drawn analysis of the absence of the word 'The'.
And as for what you deem to be satisfactory, along with who you choose to respect or not respect, you really aren't that important pal. I'd cut the smug, smarmy responses if I were you. You aren't making any friends around here - apart from the ever faithful Rebornfixer.
I can see that.
It is what the resolution calls for, which is why I posted the comments from a number of signatories to the resolution which stated that they signed on condition that Israel make a full withdrawal from all the territories seized in the war. I also provided evidence which shows that the U.S and it's proxy Israel stand alone in the world in preventing the implementation of 242.
No, it isn't the heart of the matter. It's just an excuse for Israel to reject the resolution and reject the will of the whole of the international community. The land stolen by Israel in June '67 is inadmissible. It doesn't belong to Israel. Not one inch. Stop trying to justify ethnic cleansing. If you claim to be a Jew then you of all people should know better. It really doesn't cast you in a good light.
Really? When was the last time they gave it a 'Yes' vote at the U.N? Please go ahead and refresh my memory.
Interesting. I'll now read it in it's full context.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think the focus here should be on the word 'initially', as the line you've quoted refers to the drafting process. So I'll ask you again, when has Israel accepted 242, and not cast a 'No' vote at the Security Council?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... lution_242
The representative for India stated to the Security Council:
It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories - I repeat, all the territories - occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967.
The representatives from Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, as worded by the representative from Mali: "[Mali] wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text." The Russian representative Vasili Kuznetsov stated:
We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". It follows that the provision contained in that draft relating to the right of all States in the Near East "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries" cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war.[76]
Israel was the only country represented at the Security Council to express a contrary view.
ok, they DID but do they now?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
its DELUSIONAL.`
i tried to leave it be but too many of you are getting it wrong. :wave:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
For what its worth, I was getting it wrong on purpose. :P
for what its worth i think youre lying... not to mention a crap speller. :P
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's cause you're dillusional.
I wasn't, I'm just stoned