Post #31,949
3/12/02 10:39:09 PM
|
Re: As usual when you have no answer ...
My point is that those are just words. You have Israelis saying equivalent things and you know it. Not that you would admit it. What people say is all to often so much BS. What people do is what counts. I'm watching what Israel is doing in occupied lands and it reminds me of Nazi occupations. Only the swastikas are missing.
If Israel quit the occupation of Arab lands and Arabs were attacking Israel, I would be supporting Israel 100%.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #31,955
3/12/02 11:15:24 PM
|
Er, ahem
The UN gave Israel the right to exist in certain areas in 1948. But then they were all-out attacked by pretty much all of the neighbors. Israel *wasn't* occupying Arab lands until they all-out attacked Israel. At the time of the original resolution, it was pretty limited. But they've been attacked, not once, not twice, not three times.
Israel is occupying many areas by right of conquest, and by right of being attacked and defending themselves. They *have* given back many of those territories via various peace agreements, which the Palestinians seem to forget or ignore.
The Israel hardliners are cursing their government for giving back *anything*. The softliners seem to think that playing nice with Arafat will work. Neither softliner nor hardliner are willing to give up Jerusalem. Both are wrong, IMO, but try to prove it to either side.
Don't try to prove anything to the fanatic Palestinians, they're just suicide bomb another nightclub.
Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
|
Post #31,968
3/13/02 3:05:08 AM
3/13/02 3:42:14 AM
|
Just words????
That is what people said about Hitler when they read Mein Kampf in the late 1920's early 1930's. It is not like the Arabs haven't tried to destroy Israel in the past, and made no bones about it, they broadcast it on radio and tv that they were going to throw the Jews into the sea. Based on this, it is certainly reasonable to take them at their word again.
The fact is that the majority of people in Israel were and are willing to compromise. In 1947, Israel accepted the UN Partition plan, the Palestinians did not. From 1948-1967 when Israel controlled neither the West Bank, Gaza, or th Golan, the Arabs launched 2 wars to "throw the Jews into the sea" and hundreds of terrorist attacks. In 1967 after the 6 day war Israel offered the territories back in exchange for peace, in return Israel received the famous 3 no's of Khartoum. In 1979, Israel made a FULL withdrawal from Sinai in exchange for peace. According to you that couldn't possibly have happened.
Edited by bluke
March 13, 2002, 03:42:14 AM EST
|
Post #32,015
3/13/02 12:33:50 PM
|
Re: Just words????
That is what people said about Hitler when they read Mein Kampf in the late 1920's early 1930's. It is not like the Arabs haven't tried to destroy Israel in the past, and made no bones about it, they broadcast it on radio and tv that they were going to throw the Jews into the sea. Based on this, it is certainly reasonable to take them at their word again. Sure, words when they lead to actions, can be important and not to be ignored. But, words can also simply vent frustration and rage and have no other consequence. People feel better after a rant. In 1979, Israel made a FULL withdrawal from Sinai in exchange for peace. According to you that couldn't possibly have happened. At the time, the primary value of the Sinai was oil, which had totally drained by Israel anyway. Israel was weaker than now and peace with the largest Arab neighbor made sense. Nonetheless. I give Israel of that day credit for taking that step. It's the kind of thing that would not happen today. Sure, the Arabs have tried to destroy Israel in the past. And some of them have not given up on the idea. But anyone with half brain should know that is not going to happen. The recent Saudi peace proposal, which you say is bullshit, does accept Israel's right to be. That is new. Maybe they're slow, but I think it's genuine concession to reality. Israel should take the Arabs up on it. In 1967 after the 6 day war Israel offered the territories back in exchange for peace, in return Israel received the famous 3 no's of Khartoum. Today, Israel is not the same as it was in 1967 and is not interested in peace but in creating a Greater Israel at any cost. The solution to the "Palestinian problem" is to make them leave, if possible, and annihilate the ones that don't accept their place relative to the master race. Putting every Palestinian male 14-45 years old in handcuffs for "processing" will send them a message. Right? Incidentally, I applaud the Israeli officers who signed a petition declaring their intent not serve in the occupied territories. I would say they have vision, you would call them traitors. Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,019
3/13/02 12:40:08 PM
|
do these words count :)
[link|http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26803|words]
I think you paint with 2 large a brush, many israelis do not beleive in a greater israel and would come to accomadation more than 50% in the last poll I looked at.
thanx,
bill
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
Post #32,122
3/14/02 2:37:04 AM
|
How about these words from our "moderate" Saudi friends?
[link|http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26802|Saudi news: Jews use teen blood in pastries]
"Writing in the daily Al-Riyadh, Al-Jalahma said, "For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries. In other words, the practice cannot be carried out as required if human blood is not spilled!!"
...
Al-Jalahma insisted "that the Jews' spilling human blood to prepare pastry for their holidays is a well-established fact, historically and legally, all throughout history. This was one of the main reasons for the persecution and exile that were their lot in Europe and Asia at various times."
|
Post #32,133
3/14/02 8:35:50 AM
|
whats worse the fuckwit is a professor at the University
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
Post #32,177
3/14/02 12:23:35 PM
|
You mean it's not true? :)
Actually, I think I heard something like that once when I was a kid. And, of course, I don't believe it.
It's a propaganda war. Israel is evil, Jews are evil and they do evil things.
Not any different then your Arabs are evil song. Of course, all you say about them are facts. All you see and hear just re-enforces that belief.
There is not dime's worth difference between Jews and Arabs.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,179
3/14/02 12:29:17 PM
|
especially since they are both kosher (no blood allowed)
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
Post #32,181
3/14/02 12:34:22 PM
|
Re: do these words count :)
Sure they count. The US gets to pay over and over again for supporting Israel.
Yes, I do know there are decent Israelis. And, I hope they'll get a government to match. Adolf sHitler, erm Ariel Sharon has set back peace prospects at least a decade. I hope his government crumbles soon.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,184
3/14/02 12:49:01 PM
|
Actually his actions though dumb might precipitate peace
and for all the wrong reasons. Saw an interview with several people from both sides that claim exhaustion from the escalation will force both sides to the table.
thanx,
bill
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
Post #32,483
3/16/02 9:46:37 PM
|
I would be surprised.
I think he is a shrewd bastard working for a Greater Israel as a legacy. He works at polarizing Israelis and firing up the Palestinian Arabs so he can then brutalize the Arabs and either kill them off or make them leave. He does not mind losing some Israeli lives to prove peace with the Arabs is not possible (until Greater Israel is in place). He has pushed hard with the "settlements". I'm sure you've heard the strategy of "making facts on the ground".
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/weekinreview/17BENN.html|Interesting NY Times article on Sharon.]
The current talk of a cease fire is just a ruse. One way or another, Sharon will make sure it will not work. He'll get help from the Young Turks on the Arab side. Arafat is just a joke at his point and Sharon made him so.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,501
3/17/02 9:18:21 AM
|
This greater Israel thingy you are adamnant upon
Not many Jews I know of think all of ancient Israeli is nescessary, for every american yutz who demands such a thing (seeing as his ass aint getting shot at) to the orthodox who think Israel shouldnt exist and would be happy to give it all to the arabs there is a lot of leeway. If it was possible and the situation was different, maybe. At this point in time accept what the arabs are slowly realizing, lebensroom is what you can hold right now.
thanx,
bill
The Bill of Rights, Void where ptohibited.
|
Post #32,503
3/17/02 9:19:21 AM
|
This greater Israel thingy you are adamnant upon
Not many Jews I know of think all of ancient Israeli is nescessary, for every american yutz who demands such a thing (seeing as his ass aint getting shot at) to the orthodox who think Israel shouldnt exist and would be happy to give it all to the arabs there is a lot of leeway. If it was possible and the situation was different, maybe. At this point in time accept what the arabs are slowly realizing, lebensroom is what you can hold right now.
thanx,
bill
The Bill of Rights, Void where ptohibited.
|
Post #31,976
3/13/02 5:21:54 AM
|
For the hundreth time...
You still haven't explained why you call it Arab land. Here is a fascinating speech given by Senator Daniel Inhofe about this very subject [link|http://www.senate.gov/~inhofe/fl030402.html|PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST]
"I want the Presiding Officer to hear what Mark Twain said. And, of course, you may have read
"Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer." Mark Twain--Samuel Clemens--took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country. Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them. This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. This is the Palestinian Royal Commission. They said:
The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.
That was 1913.
The French author Voltaire described Palestine as "a hopeless, dreary place."
In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. Historically, they began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.
Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks."
|
Post #32,024
3/13/02 12:54:43 PM
|
It is Arab land because...
that's what it was before the 1967 war. The Geneva Convention prohibits land acquisition by conquest.
Israel's borders were defined when it became a state. Do you want to invalidate the UN creation of Israel and try again? You would find lots of sympathetic ears for that proposal. But not from me.
All the rest of what you say is just smoke.
Curious, do you live in one of those "settlements"?
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,105
3/13/02 10:36:44 PM
|
Wrong again
Israel's borders were not defined in 1948 when she became a state. The 1948 borders are only armistice lines.
I do not live in a "settlement", I live and work within the "green line"
|
Post #32,113
3/14/02 1:11:40 AM
|
I stand corrected. The UN did not establish the boundary.
The Armistice agreement signed by Israel and the Arabs in 1949 established the borders and is also accepted as such by the international community. This is the Green Line. So why does Israel not honor its agreement?
And why does Israel ignore Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which says "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
I am glad to know you live inside the Green Line.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,121
3/14/02 2:30:46 AM
|
Still wrong
The Armistice Agreements in 1949 specifically state that these are not the final lines. All the quotes from Eugene Rostow are from The New Republic, October 21, 1991.
Here is a quote from Eugene Rostow (Undersecretary of State for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 one of the architects of UN Resolution 242):
"Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which provided (except in th case of Lebanon) that the Armistice Demarcation Lines separating the military forces were "not to be construed in any sense" as political or territorial boundaries, and that "no provision" of the Armistice Agreements "Shall in any way prejudice the right, claims, and positions" of the parties "in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem." In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate.
Israel is not ignoring the Geneva Convention, again Eugene Rostow:
"Article 49 provides that the occupying power "shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." But the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers. They have not been "deported" or "transferred" by the government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent. Furthermore, the Convention applies only to acts by one signatory "carried out on the territory of another." The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate. It is hard, therefore, to see how even the most literal-minded> reading of the Convention could make it apply to Jewish settlement in territories of the British Mandate west of the jordan River. Even if the Convention could be construed to prevent settlements during the period of
occupation, however, it could do no more than suspend, not terminate, the rights conferred by the Mandate. Those rights can be ended only by the establishment and recognition of a new state or the incorporation of the territories into an old one.
As claimants to the territory, the Israelis have denied that they are required to comply with the Geneva Convention but announced that they will do so as a matter of grace. The Israeli courts apply the Convention routinely, sometimes deciding against the Israeli government. Assuming for the moment the general applicability of the Convention, it could well be considered a violation if the Israelis deported convicts to the area or encouraged the settlemen of people who had no right to live there (Americans, for example). But how can the Convention be deemed to apply to Jews who have a right to settle in the territories under international law: a legal right assured by treaty and specifically protected by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, which provides that nothing in the Charter shall be construed "to alter in any manner" rights conferred by existing international instruments" like the Mandate? The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there.
...
"But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."
...
The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion."
|
Post #32,198
3/14/02 2:32:58 PM
|
Wonderful.
So you found a (high placed in US government) Jew who thinks all of the Palestinian Mandate is fair game for a Greater Israel. Rostow is the man that went to Jordan before the 1967 war to deliver the Israeli message to stay out and be spared.
Now find me an Arab who goes along with Rostow.
What do you think of UN Resolution 181 that declared a Palestinian Arab state back in 1949. To be ignored, of course, like it was by Egypt and Jordan.
And how long did it take for Israel to act on the 1978 UN Resolution 425 and withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon?
Here is a (Syrian site) [link|http://www.golan-syria.org/resolutb.htm|LIST] of umpteen UN resolutions regarding Israel and the occupied territories. All as meaningful as your interpretation of 242?
And we'll see what happens with the UN Resolution this week calling for a Palestinian State.
You pick and choose UN resolutions.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,493
3/17/02 3:16:48 AM
|
UN Resolutions
This is the same UN that in 1975 passed a resolution calling Zionism racism. In general, the Arabs can pass any resoltuion they want against Israel, as they have a majority (the Islamic nations plus other third world nations like Cuba). Look at what happened in Durban, an anti-racism conference whose major focus was on Israel when there are alot biger problems in the world (like the Sudan, at the time the Taliban, etc). The biggest joke is that right now Syria is sitting on the Security Council.
You claimed that Israel's borders were set in 1949, I showed that your statement has no basis in fact. You still haven't answered that one yet.
Btw, UN Resolution 181 was in 1947 not 1949. It is quite hypocritical for the Arabs to talk about UN Resolution 181, when EVERY single Arab country rejected it.
|
Post #32,510
3/17/02 2:02:47 PM
|
Agreed then, *ALL* UN Resolutions mean nothing.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,545
3/18/02 4:31:15 AM
|
In truth, yes
In the General Assembly every country gets an equal vote, no matter how big or small. The security council on the other hand has 5 permanent members who can veto anything, therefore the security council is certainly not representative.
|
Post #32,494
3/17/02 3:23:04 AM
|
Wrong again, not just Eugene Rostow
I guess the US Ambassador to the UN at that time (Arthur Goldberg) and the British Ambassador to the UN at that time also don't know what they are talking about. [link|http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/cdavid.html|UN Security Council Resolution 242]
"Our UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg,
has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in
regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines'
... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without
defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a
complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as
Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
...
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the
resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to
demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those
positions were undesirable and artificial."
|
Post #32,515
3/17/02 3:44:39 PM
|
Not Wrong, just not self-serving.
Arthur Goldberg was of course Jewish, so no surprise that you could find something to quote. But even then, at this link about [link|http://www.caabu.org/press/focus/mchugo.html|interpreting Resolution 242:] But what of the oft repeated assertion that the members of the Security Council intended the Resolution to enable Israel to retain some of the territories? The Official Record of the Security Council meeting disproves this Israeli assertion. Although the draft was tabled by the British representative, Lord Caradon, it was discussed by all voting members and incorporated features of different earlier drafts. It was passed unanimously by all fifteen voting members. The Resolution was presented as a composite whole, and it was the meaning of the text taken as a whole that counted. As the US representative, Mr Goldberg, stated, ' the voting of course takes place not on the individual or discrete views and policies of the various members but on the draft resolution.' You are of course, pushing the purely Israeli interpretation. Not one single state supported the Israeli interpretation. The Green Line boundary makes sense to me because it is the last one agreed to by both sides. It is a starting point. Nothing prohibits the negotiation of a different boundary but Israel has no right to change boundaries unilaterally or by coercion of military might. Besides if all boundaries are flexible the Palestinian Arabs would have the perfect right to try to move that boundary into the sea. Do you buy that as well? After all, Israel has no official boundaries. Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,546
3/18/02 4:59:59 AM
3/18/02 5:01:16 AM
|
Still wrong as usual
You claim that Arthur Goldberg the US Ambassador to the UN took a certain position because he was Jewish, are you going to bring the old dual loyalty canard?
I stand by the comments of both Goldberg, Caradon, and Eugene Rostow, as the primary architects of the resolution. The architects of the resolution have clearly stated in black and white years later that the resolution does not call for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines. They made these comments years after the resolution was passed (in the 1970's) and are clearly and obviously talking about the resolution that the UN passed. What more can you possibly want?
In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Caradon stated:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers on each side happened to be on 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."
Arthur J. Goldberg, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1965-1967):
"It calls for respect and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every state in the area. Since Israel never denied the sovereignty of its neighbouring countries, this language obviously requires those countries to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty."
"The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal....There is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, failed to command the requisite support..."
- Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973
"The Meaning of 242" - June 10, 1977
Lord Caradon, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):
"We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever."
Here is a quote from Lyndon B.Johnson. U.S.President (1963-1968)
"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace". (September 10, 1968)
Edited by bluke
March 18, 2002, 05:01:16 AM EST
|
Post #32,548
3/18/02 5:29:30 AM
|
Are all these people Jewish too?
Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:
Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"
Answer: "the purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . "
Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:
Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"
Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."
- Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:
"As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."
- Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:
"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)
Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):
"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."
All the quotes are taken from here [link|http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/more242.shtml|UN Resolution 242]
But you can go on believing the Arab propaganda if you want to.
|
Post #32,629
3/18/02 3:23:26 PM
|
What none of these quotes say...
is the Israel has a right to unilaterally define it's borders. Subject to a new agreement on borders with the Palestinian Arabs, the armistice borders are what you have.
Also, what none of these quotes say is that Israel has a right to colonize Palestinian Arab lands. Or, occupy Arab lands in perpetuity.
The primary intent of UN Resolution 242 is for Israel to withdraw from occupied lands. That was 35 years ago, you know?
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,632
3/18/02 3:38:54 PM
|
whats a mere 35 vs 2000 :)
The Southern US border is unilaterally changing hands so we should have the right to demand its return?
thanx,
bill
The Bill of Rights, Void where prohibited.
|
Post #32,698
3/19/02 2:55:02 AM
|
What they do say clearly
is that the Arabs cannot unilaterally define the borders as the 1949 armistice lines and that Israel is under no obligation to withdraw to the 1967 borders. Israel offered in September 1967, to withdraw, the Arabs gave their famous 3 no's of Khartoum. What it does say is that the parties need to negotiate a settlement which includes borders so that all the states have security. Until now, none of the Arabs (except Egypt) have been willing to negotiate.
|
