NationStates Jolt Archive

(The bolded parts are bolded by me)

Prelude to the Six Days

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 18, 2007; Page A23

There has hardly been a Middle East peace plan in the past 40 years -- including the current Saudi version -- that does not demand a return to the status quo of June 4, 1967. Why is that date so sacred? Because it was the day before the outbreak of the Six-Day War in which Israel scored one of the most stunning victories of the 20th century. The Arabs have spent four decades trying to undo its consequences.

In fact, the real anniversary should be now, three weeks earlier. On May 16, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser ordered the evacuation from the Sinai Peninsula of the U.N. buffer force that had kept Israel and Egypt at peace for 10 years. The United Nations complied, at which point Nasser imposed a naval blockade of Israel's only outlet to the south, the port of Eilat -- an open act of war.

How Egypt came to this reckless provocation is a complicated tale (chronicled in Michael Oren's magisterial "Six Days of War") of aggressive intent compounded with miscommunication and, most fatefully, disinformation. The Soviet Union had reported urgently and falsely to its Middle East clients, Syria and Egypt, that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border for an attack. Israel desperately tried to disprove this charge by three times inviting the Soviet ambassador in Israel to visit the front. He refused. The Soviet warnings led to a cascade of intra-Arab maneuvers that in turn led Nasser, the champion of pan-Arabism, to mortally confront Israel with a remilitarized Sinai and a southern blockade.

Why is this still important? Because that three-week period between May 16 and June 5 helps explain Israel's 40-year reluctance to give up the fruits of that war -- the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza -- in return for paper guarantees of peace. Israel had similar guarantees from the 1956 Suez war, after which it evacuated the Sinai in return for that U.N. buffer force and for assurances from the Western powers of free passage through the Straits of Tiran.

All this disappeared with a wave of Nasser's hand. During those three interminable weeks, President Lyndon Johnson did try to rustle up an armada of countries to run the blockade and open Israel's south. The effort failed dismally.

It is hard to exaggerate what it was like for Israel in those three weeks. Egypt, already in an alliance with Syria, formed an emergency military pact with Jordan. Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco began sending forces to join the coming fight. With troops and armor massing on Israel's every frontier, jubilant broadcasts in every Arab capital hailed the imminent final war for the extermination of Israel. "We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants," declared PLO head Ahmed Shuqayri, "and as for the survivors -- if there are any -- the boats are ready to deport them."

For Israel, the waiting was excruciating and debilitating. Israel's citizen army had to be mobilized. As its soldiers waited on the various fronts for the world to rescue the nation from its peril, Israeli society ground to a halt and its economy began bleeding to death. Army Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, later to be hailed as a war hero and even later as a martyred man of peace, had a nervous breakdown. He was incapacitated to the point of incoherence by the unbearable tension of waiting with the life of his country in the balance, knowing that waiting too long would allow the armies of 100 million Arabs to strike first his country of 3 million.

We know the rest of the story. Rabin did recover in time to lead Israel to victory. But we forget how perilous was Israel's condition. The victory hinged on a successful attack on Egypt's air force on the morning of June 5. It was a gamble of astonishing proportions. Israel sent the bulk of its 200-plane air force on the mission, fully exposed to antiaircraft fire and missiles. Had they been detected and the force destroyed, the number of planes remaining behind to defend the Israeli homeland -- its cities and civilians -- from the Arab air forces' combined 900 planes was . . . 12.

We also forget that Israel's occupation of the West Bank was entirely unsought. Israel begged King Hussein of Jordan to stay out of the conflict. Engaged in fierce combat with a numerically superior Egypt, Israel had no desire to open a new front just yards from Jewish Jerusalem and just miles from Tel Aviv. But Nasser personally told Hussein that Egypt had destroyed Israel's air force and airfields and that total victory was at hand. Hussein could not resist the temptation to join the fight. He joined. He lost.

The world will soon be awash with 40th-anniversary retrospectives of the war -- and exegeses on the peace of the ages that awaits if Israel would only to return to lines of June 4, 1967. But Israelis are cautious. They remember the terror of that June 4 and of that unbearable May when, with Israel in possession of no occupied territories whatsoever, the entire Arab world was furiously preparing Israel's imminent extinction. And the world did nothing.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

The column is pretty informative. If you want more information I highly recommend reading Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East.

While on the topic of 1967, I thought I'd also talk about UNSC Resolution 242.

This resolution is often misinterpreted and misrepresented by Israel's critics.

The main claim that is misrepresented is that the resolution requires Israel to pull back to pre-1967 lines. This is a claim that is utterly false.

The fact remains that neither UNSC Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, the Camp David Accords, or the roadmap make a return to the 1949 armistice lines.

British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced and authored the resolution, (note that author's intent is very important when interpreting any legal document) 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."

The UN Resolution was carefully worded. American UN Ambassador at the time and former USSC Justice Arthur Goldberg stated:

The notable omissions 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 the withdrawal.

This obviously means that Israel doesn't have to make a complete withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In fact, you could make a legal case that Israel is already compliant with 242 on the grounds that they pulled out of the Sinai Peninsula, which makes up most of the land captured.

Many people who have claimed that Israel can't hold East Jerusalem or build the wall fail to note that Israel can legally redraw the borders. Now, any future peace plan will require a pullout of the West Bank. This is an indisputable fact that Israel will have a make some withdrawal at some point to secure peace. What isn't realized by most is that Israel can legally retain portions of the West Bank in order to make a defensible border.

The 1978 Camp David Accords also don't require a full withdrawal. The 1978 document states the following:

The negotiation [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arragnements.

In the Oslo Accords, Chapter 3, Article XVII(a) state that borders are one of the issues that will be negotiated. This of course means that Israel isn't required to pull back to pre-1967 lines.

The 2003 roadmap also invoked UNSC Resolution 242. Nowhere does the document call for pulling back to the borders before the 1967 war.

I got as far as "Charles Kraughthammer" and stopped.

I got as far as "Charles Kraughthammer' and stopped.
So you are a close minded fool who only reads the opinions of those you agree with, NEXT.

At least read the article and if there are fallacies in it, point it out and debate. Just saying you're not going to read something makes you as foolish as Rosie O'Donnell.

So you are a close minded fool who only reads the opinions of those you agree with, NEXT.

At least read the article and if there are fallacies in it, point it out and debate. Just saying you're not going to read something makes you as foolish as Rosie O'Donnell.
I read the bolded parts.

So you are a close minded fool who only reads the opinions of those you agree with, NEXT.

*wonders what the reaction would be to a Michael Moore piece - the same perhaps?*

I read it to the end.

Has the Israeli goverment realized that both Nasser and the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore?

I read it to the end.

Has the Israeli goverment realized that both Nasser and the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore?Probably, but they also realize that Assad still exists and you will never see the Golan Heights leave Israeli hands because of that.

They also realize that Mubarak isn't in the most stable position and that another nationalist leader can always come and overthrow him.

So you are a close minded fool who only reads the opinions of those you agree with, NEXT.

"Saddam survived, rearmed, defeated the inspections regime and is now back in the business of building weapons of mass destruction"-April 19th, 2002 :p

and from the hastily read bold parts I guess I have to agree (even if its FOX 2+2=5 news) though my position on the issue has always been states based on what the majority living there want

*wonders what the reaction would be to a Michael Moore piece - the same perhaps?*
You are just talking out of your ass.

I don't fall for the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. You seem to have no problem using the fallacy to justify your own ignorance.

You are just talking out of your ass.

Methinks you do the same when you spout Israeli propaganda.

I read it to the end.

Has the Israeli goverment realized that both Nasser and the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore?

To be fair, very few countries seem to have realised that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The armed forces of the UK and the US still seem to be preparing to fight a non-existant enemy, egged on by the politicians.

Methinks you do the same when you spout Israeli propaganda.

I post facts and quote actual resolutions and the quotes of two of the most key people behind it (including the author of the resolution in question).

To be fair, very few countries seem to have realised that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. The armed forces of the UK and the US still seem to be preparing to fight a non-existant enemy, egged on by the politicians.

I honestly don't think the Russians have realized it themselves. Just look at the Polonium 210 poisoning case and the actions of Putin.

I honestly don't think the Russians have realized it themselves. Just look at the Polonium 210 poisoning case.

Very true. Maybe they all know something we don't and the Soviet Union does still exist, just like in the Simpsons. ;)

"Saddam survived, rearmed, defeated the inspections regime and is now back in the business of building weapons of mass destruction"-April 19th, 2002 :p

and from the hastily read bold parts I guess I have to agree (even if its FOX 2+2=5 news) though my position on the issue has always been states based on what the majority living there want
Majority rule is a nice concept, but what Iraq and, indeed, history, with a few exceptions, has shown, the reality is not always ideal. You'd have to be a significant advocate of the ends justifies the means if you believe that states should be based on what the majority living there want.

I post facts and quote actual resolutions and the quotes of two of the most key people behind it (including the author of the resolution in question).

Even if you do, it is VERY bias in favour of Israel. Facts are facts; you can use very valid facts to prove a point while skewing them in favour of one point of view over another.

You are just talking out of your ass.

I don't fall for the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. You seem to have no problem using the fallacy to justify your own ignorance.

Why do you assume my post was from ignorance? You should know that assuming somthing results in the mother of all f*** ups :)

I simply don't agree with what Mr. Krauthammer has had to say.... ever.

And of course, you take apart Michael Moore pieces based purely on facts and not the usual "fat, Commie, libral, anti-American, Castro lovin'" argument. Riiight.

Even if you do, it is VERY bias in favour of Israel. Facts are facts; you can use very valid facts to prove a point while skewing them in favour of one point of view over another.

Still doesn't make em any less facts, said so yourself. Isn't this what debate is about? Skewing facts so both sides have a legitimate argument against the other?

Why do you assume my post was from ignorance? You should know that assuming somthing results in the mother of all f*** ups :)

I simply don't agree with what Mr. Krauthammer has had to say.... ever.

And of course, you take apart Michael Moore pieces based purely on facts and not the usual "fat, Commie, libral, anti-American, Castro lovin'" argument. Riiight.
You are at the very least making your post on a logical fallacy.

Krauthammer is 100% correct in this column. If you don't agree, then you should try to argue it instead of dismissing it because you have nothing to say against it.

I have never dismissed Michael Moore on the grounds I disagreed with him. When I argue against his points, I take the points apart instead of flat out saying "it's Michael Moore so it's not true." You on the other hand resort to logical fallacies because you have nothing else.

"Saddam survived, rearmed, defeated the inspections regime and is now back in the business of building weapons of mass destruction"-April 19th, 2002 :p


I think you could have found just about anyone in any part of the political spectrum who would have made much the same comment. The only person who knew Saddam was telling the truth about his WMDs was Saddam himself - and, for very good reason (that being, he lied about everything else continuously), no one believed him.

Krauthammer tends to the right and isn't afraid to say un-PC things. Neither of those points means he is wrong.

Krauthammer is 100% correct in this column. If you don't agree, then you should try to argue it instead of dismissing it because you have nothing to say against it.

He uses facts. Fine. He illuminates facts with certain words to involve an argument with emotions. I don't agree with that.

Secondly, he appears (in my opinion) to be justifying the occupation of the West Bank today (which is illegal) by the "spoils of war" argument. That argument has been deemed to not hold up under international law.

That is why I don't agree with him on this issue. On others I find him to be extremely neo-conservatie and has a tendancy to cherry pcik facts and points to back up his own (rather weak sometimes) arguments.

You on the other hand resort to logical fallacies because you have nothing else.
I didn't want to waste the brain power on him to be honest.

He uses facts. Fine. He illuminates facts with certain words to involve an argument with emotions. I don't agree with that.

Er, that's called making an argument where I'm from. It's exactly what EVERY political commentator and newsman who has ever, does now, or ever will exist, does. If you want to argue against the argument, go ahead, but I don't think it's quite fair to dismiss him for arguing his point.


Secondly, he appears (in my opinion) to be justifying the occupation of the West Bank today (which is illegal) by the "spoils of war" argument. That argument has been deemed to not hold up under international law.


There is no International Law. And if you had actually read the piece, you would see that Krauthammer is actually saying that the occupation of the West Bank is not contrary to UN resolutions.

I didn't want to waste the brain power on him to be honest.

Then don't comment on what you are utterly ignorant of.

While on the topic of 1967, I thought I'd also talk about UNSC Resolution 242.
Why don'tcha?

This resolution is often misinterpreted and misrepresented by Israel's critics.
Kinda like you're doing here :)

The main claim that is misrepresented is that the resolution requires Israel to pull back to pre-1967 lines. This is a claim that is utterly false.
Nope. Try "debatable".

The fact remains that neither UNSC Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, the Camp David Accords, or the roadmap make a return to the 1949 armistice lines.
Blatant copy/paste from Wiki:
Semantic dispute

The interpretation of the resolution has been controversial, in particular the meaning of Operative Clause 1(i):

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

In simple terms, the semantic argument is about whether Israel's obligations under the resolution include the requirement that her armed forces withdraw from all the territories captured in 1967 or whether these obligations could be satisfied in the event of a negotiated withdrawal from some part or parts of the territories.

[edit] French version vs. English version of text

The French version of the clause reads:

Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit.

The difference between the two versions lies in the absence of a definite article ("the") in the English version while a definite article ("de + les" = "des") is present in the French version. While some observers argue that the absence of the definite article in English does not preclude an interpretation meaning "all territories", others counter by claiming that the presence of the definite article in French grammar does not preclude an interpretation meaning "territories" rather than "the territories". Although some have dismissed the controversy by suggesting that the definite article in the French version is a translation error, and should therefore be ignored in interpreting the document, the debate has retained its force.

For example, solicitor John McHugo, a partner at Trowers & Hamlins and a visiting fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at Edinburgh University draws a comparison to phrases such as:

Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park.

In spite of the lack of definite articles, according to McHugo, it is clear that such an instruction cannot legitimately be taken to imply that some dogs need not be kept on the lead or that the rule applies only near some ponds. Further, McHugo points out a potential consequence of the logic employed by advocates of a "some" reading. Paragraph 2 (a) of the Resolution, which guarantees "freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area", may allow Arab states to interfere with navigation through some international waterways of their choosing.[7]

On the other hand, Shabtai Rosenne, former Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and member of the UN's International Law Commission, notes that:

It is an historical fact, which nobody has ever attempted to deny, that the negotiations between the members of the Security Council, and with the other interested parties, which preceded the adoption of that resolution, were conducted on the basis of English texts, ultimately consolidated in Security Council document S/8247. [...] Many experts in the French language, including academics with no political axe to grind, have advised that the French translation is an accurate and idiomatic rendering of the original English text, and possibly even the only acceptable rendering into French."[...] "[o]n the question of concordance, the French representative [to the 1379th meeting of the Security Council on November 16, 1967] was explicit in stating that the French text was "identical" with the English text.[8]

He also states:

It is known from an outside source that the sponsors resisted all attempts to insert words such as "all" or "the" in the text of this phrase in the English text of the resolution, and it will not be overlooked that when that very word "all" erroneously crept into the Spanish translation of the draft, it was subsequently removed.[9]

Only English and French were the Security Council's working languages (Arabic, Russian, Spanish and Chinese were official but not the working languages).

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America argues the practice at the UN is that the binding version of any resolution is the one voted upon. In the case of 242 that version was in English, so they assert the English version the only binding one.[10] Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of Diplomacy points out that this was indeed the position held by the United States and United Kingdom:

... both the British and the Americans pointed out that 242 was a British resolution; therefore, the English language text was authoritative and would prevail in any dispute over interpretation.[11]

The French representative to the Security Council, in the debate immediately after the vote, asserted:

the French text, which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories" We were likewise gratified to hear the United Kingdom representative stress the link between this paragraph of his resolution and the principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by force....[12]

Opponents of the "all territories" reading remind that the UN Security Council declined to adopt a draft resolution including the definite article way prior to the adoption of Resolution 242[citation needed]. They argue that, in interpreting a resolution of an international organization, one must look to the process of the negotiation and adoption of the text. This would make the text in English, the language of the discussion, take precedence.

[edit] Legal interpretation

[edit] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

The legal principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius (which states that the terms excluded from a law must be considered as excluded intentionally) is cited by some[citation needed] as operating against an "all territories" reading. Arab states specifically requested that the resolution be changed to read "all territories" instead of "territories." Their request was discussed by the UN Security council. However, it was rejected. The Security Council actively chose to reject writing "all territories" and instead wrote "territories." And it was this version, without "all" that was passed. Others insist that the legal principle in question cannot operate so as to create ambiguity. Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:

It was from occupied territories that the [r]esolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact...East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I[t] was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[13]

Lord Caradon also maintains,

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.[14]

[edit] The drafting process

A key part of the case in favour of a "some territories" reading is the claim that British and American officials involved in the drafting of the Resolution omitted the definite article deliberately in order to make it less demanding on the Israelis. As George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, commented:

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.[15]

Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution, takes a subtly different slant. His focus seems to be that the lack of a definite article is intended to deny permanence to the "unsatisfactory" pre-1967 border, rather than to allow Israel to retain land taken by force. Such a view would appear to allow for the possibility that the borders could be varied through negotiation:

Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.[16] 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...http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267


Eugene V Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and one of the drafters of the resolution, draws attention to the fact that the text proposed by the British had succeeded ahead of alternatives (in particular, a more explicit text proposed by the Soviet Union):

... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.[17]

The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council.[18]

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.[19]

He also points out that attempts to explicitly widen the motion to include "the" or "all" territories were explicitly rejected

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.[1]

Rostow's President, Lyndon B Johnson, appears to support this last view:

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.[20]

Arthur Goldberg, another of the resolution's drafters, concurred that Resolution 242 does not dictate the extent of the withdrawal, and added that this matter should be negotiated between the parties:

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.[21]

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."

President Lyndon Johnson:

"The nations of the region have had only fragile and violated truce lines for 20 years. What they now need are recognized boundaries and other arrangements that will give them security against terror, destruction, and war.

"There are some who have urged, as a single, simple solution, an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4. As our distinguished and able Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Goldberg, has already said, this is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities."

President Ronald Reagan:

"Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders, and it has a right to demand of its neighbours that they recognize those facts.

"I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."

Secretary of State Albright to the U.N. General Assembly:

"We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 as 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'. In the view of my government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty."

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."

Secretary of State Christopher's letter to Netanyahu:

"I would like to reiterate our position that Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders, which should be directly negotiated and agreed with its neighbors."

Secretary of State George Shultz:

"Israel will never negotiate from, or return to, the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders.

"So the state of Israel cannot agree to anything other than its own secure, defensible, and internationally recognized borders."

[edit] Statements by Security Council representatives

Supporters of an "all territories" reading point out that the intentions and opinions of draftsmen are not normally considered relevant to the interpretation of law, their role being purely administrative. It is claimed that much more weight should be given to opinons expressed on the matter in discussions at the Security Council prior to the adoption of the resolution. 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".

Israel was the only country represented at the Security Council to express a contrary view. The USA, United Kingdom, Denmark, China and Japan were silent on the matter, but the US and UK did point out that other country's comments on the meaning of 242 were simply their own views. The Syrian representative was strongly critical of the text's "vague call on Israel to withdraw".

The statement by the Brazilian representative perhaps gives a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions:

I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States.

However, the Soviet delegate Vasily Kuznetsov said after the adoption of Resolution 242:" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient". {{Citation needed}}

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, who represented the US in discussions, later stated: "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".[22]
Look! Arguments for AND against!! My word, you would think there weren't a single one, since it was "false" :rolleyes:

I'll tell you a secret here: You don't have a clear answer because there isn't one.


British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced and authored the resolution, (note that author's intent is very important when interpreting any legal document) 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."
...except international treaties, UN resolutions, and other international law. Then the intent doesn't really mean anything, it's the wording that's important.


The UN Resolution was carefully worded. American UN Ambassador at the time and former USSC Justice Arthur Goldberg stated:

The notable omissions 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 the withdrawal.

This obviously means that Israel doesn't have to make a complete withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In fact, you could make a legal case that Israel is already compliant with 242 on the grounds that they pulled out of the Sinai Peninsula, which makes up most of the land captured.
See above. And it would be a very weak case indeed, which does not have the support of many (any?) UN member states today.

Many people who have claimed that Israel can't hold East Jerusalem or build the wall fail to note that Israel can legally redraw the borders. Now, any future peace plan will require a pullout of the West Bank. This is an indisputable fact that Israel will have a make some withdrawal at some point to secure peace. What isn't realized by most is that Israel can legally retain portions of the West Bank in order to make a defensible border.
Debatable.

The 1978 Camp David Accords also don't require a full withdrawal. The 1978 document states the following:

The negotiation [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arragnements.

In the Oslo Accords, Chapter 3, Article XVII(a) state that borders are one of the issues that will be negotiated. This of course means that Israel isn't required to pull back to pre-1967 lines.

The 2003 roadmap also invoked UNSC Resolution 242. Nowhere does the document call for pulling back to the borders before the 1967 war.
So? Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

There. See? Not as plain as you would like it to be.

Er, that's called making an argument where I'm from. It's exactly what EVERY political commentator and newsman who has ever, does now, or ever will exist, does. If you want to argue against the argument, go ahead, but I don't think it's quite fair to dismiss him for arguing his point.
I dismiss it for attempting to illict certain emotions from me to support one side over the other. I fail to see your problem - people take apart Robert Fisk and co for exactly the same reason.



There is no International Law.
Debatable - but I'm sure that's for another thread.

And if you had actually read the piece, you would see that Krauthammer is actually saying that the occupation of the West Bank is not contrary to UN resolutions.
I did read the piece - and he is saying essentially land captured in war (ie the West Bank) can be kept. The world has disagreed since the end of World War II.

Then don't comment on what you are utterly ignorant of.
Ignorant of... my opinion. Because that's all I gave and you say I'm ignorant of it. Quite the odd statement to make.

"Here's my opinion of the piece (not the argument)"
"You're ignorant"
"Of...?"
"The argument"
"I never gave my opinion on the argument, I gave my opinion on the piece."
"You're ignorant".

Probably, but they also realize that Assad still exists and you will never see the Golan Heights leave Israeli hands because of that.

They also realize that Mubarak isn't in the most stable position and that another nationalist leader can always come and overthrow him.

Have they realized that also Monaco, San Marino, Malta, Andorra and Luxembourg could form eventually a coalition that could try to overthrow their govement?

I mean, I think they are being over cautious. As a matter of fact, according to that line of thinking, Israel should be cautious of Germany, and declare a preemptive war against them to reclaim Hamburg. You never know when another anti semitic nationalist leader could rise there and try to exterminate the jews again. You need to keep those germans in check. After all, Germany still exists, and they have neo nazi, nazi, and anti semitic parties and movements there.

What about Austria? That is also a potential threat.

(As actually, is everybody)

Probably, but they also realize that Assad still exists and you will never see the Golan Heights leave Israeli hands because of that.
You mean, because of the water, you'll never see the Golan Heights leave Israeli hands...

Man I'm sorry I'd like to read all of your original post, but that's like 2 pages double spaced. (Might as well be "War and Peace" by this forums standards) You could have got your idea across in fewer words.

Man I'm sorry I'd like to read all of your original post, but that's like 2 pages double spaced. (Might as well be "War and Peace" by this forums standards) You could have got your idea across in fewer words.

IDF doesn't do short.

Ignorant of... my opinion. Because that's all I gave and you say I'm ignorant of it. Quite the odd statement to make.

"Here's my opinion of the piece (not the argument)"
"You're ignorant"
"Of...?"
"The argument"
"I never gave my opinion on the argument, I gave my opinion on the piece."
"You're ignorant".

No, ignorant of the content of the piece. Which, in your first post, you effectively stated you had not read. But commented upon anyway.

No, ignorant of the content of the piece. Which, in your first post, you effectively stated you had not read. But commented upon anyway.

Because I know Charles Krauthammer's articles. My national newspaper carries his daily column - I read it pretty much every day. So when I saw "Israel" and "1967 borders" combined with his name, I knew which way it would end up.

Shockingly, when I read the piece I was right.

So, yeah, people can base opinions based on performers past history. :)

What Mr Kraughthammer (lovely made up name) is attempting to do is a typical conservative trick - using emotionally inflammatory wording to illicit an emotional response and skew an argument.

Zionist propaganda pure and simple.

Now watch IDF accuse me of anti semitism.

Because I know Charles Krauthammer's articles. My national newspaper carries his daily column - I read it pretty much every day. So when I saw "Israel" and "1967 borders" combined with his name, I knew which way it would end up.

Shockingly, when I read the piece I was right.

So, yeah, people can base opinions based on performers past history. :)

Well, that's cool. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with a position, though I might argue with them about it; but it really annoys me when people refuse to read the op then blather on anyway. To me it shows disrespect for the poster.

What Mr Kraughthammer (lovely made up name) is attempting to do is a typical conservative trick - using emotionally inflammatory wording to illicit an emotional response and skew an argument.

Zionist propaganda pure and simple.

Now watch IDF accuse me of anti semitism.

If you actually meant that post, he might have a point...

If you actually meant that post, he might have a point...

`How so?

`How so?

Well, you just posted a fairly common type of response to IDF's threads. I'm sure you were just twitting IDF (he sometimes needs it; boy's gonna blow a ventricle one of these days...) so I don't think you're really one of the perpetrators.

These posts use every rhetorical trick in the book to attack the op, without actually addressing it in any way.

Taking your post as a "for instance":

What Mr Kraughthammer (lovely made up name)

First Phrase: Discredit the op writer by attacking his name. This has nothing, of course, to do with the merits of his argument.

is attempting to do is a typical conservative trick

Second Phrase: Associate him with a political side unpopular her. Simultaneously, use the term "trick" to make his words appear chosen only to deceive.

using emotionally inflammatory wording

Third Phrase: Knowing people like to believe they are rational, you throw up the spectre of emotional manipulation, trying to make those who have read the op fear they are being so manipulated should they find it convincing.

illicit an emotional response and skew an argument.

Fourth Phrase: elicit is the correct spelling, but by using the term illicit instead, you increase your emotional tempo - the first is emotionally neutral, the second, decidedly negative.

Meanwhile, you reinforce the "emotional manipulation" argument by repetition, and state that the argument is somehow incorrect, or "skewed" (without, of course, explaining how so).

Zionist propaganda pure and simple.

Fifth Phrase: Here, you are both dismissive of the piece (implying it is not worth your time), and manage to associate it with yet another unpopular philosophy.

Now, I may be reading more into your piece than you meant (I probably am - this sort of analysis can get immensely complex), but I think my point is clear - you are attacking and dismissing the piece without ever actually tackling an aspect of the actual argument.

A (much) cruder example would be taking Uncle Tom's Cabin and dismissing it by saying "It was written by a Black, it can't be worth anthing." In that case, everyone would see my bias instantly. With the more inventive posters IDF has to deal with, the bias is VERY carefully hidden - but is there, nonetheless.

`How so?

Because Charles Krauthammer is a real person maybe?

Because Charles Krauthammer is a real person maybe?

Unfortunately someone I have never heard of over on this side of the pond.

Would you believe me if I told you there was a British MP called Lembit Opik?

Unfortunately someone I have never heard of over on this side of the pond.

Would you believe me if I told you there was a British MP called Lembit Opik?

I really don't see why not. Some people have names ranging from the bizarre to the unfortunate.

South Vietnamese politico Mr Li Bum Suk is a perfect example of the latter, and he most certainly was a real person.

Well, you just posted a fairly common type of response to IDF's threads. I'm sure you were just twitting IDF (he sometimes needs it; boy's gonna blow a ventricle one of these days...) so I don't think you're really one of the perpetrators.

These posts use every rhetorical trick in the book to attack the op, without actually addressing it in any way.

Taking your post as a "for instance":



First Phrase: Discredit the op writer by attacking his name. This has nothing, of course, to do with the merits of his argument.



Second Phrase: Associate him with a political side unpopular her. Simultaneously, use the term "trick" to make his words appear chosen only to deceive.



Third Phrase: Knowing people like to believe they are rational, you throw up the spectre of emotional manipulation, trying to make those who have read the op fear they are being so manipulated should they find it convincing.



Fourth Phrase: elicit is the correct spelling, but by using the term illicit instead, you increase your emotional tempo - the first is emotionally neutral, the second, decidedly negative.

Meanwhile, you reinforce the "emotional manipulation" argument by repetition, and state that the argument is somehow incorrect, or "skewed" (without, of course, explaining how so).



Fifth Phrase: Here, you are both dismissive of the piece (implying it is not worth your time), and manage to associate it with yet another unpopular philosophy.

Now, I may be reading more into your piece than you meant (I probably am - this sort of analysis can get immensely complex), but I think my point is clear - you are attacking and dismissing the piece without ever actually tackling an aspect of the actual argument.

A (much) cruder example would be taking Uncle Tom's Cabin and dismissing it by saying "It was written by a Black, it can't be worth anthing." In that case, everyone would see my bias instantly. With the more inventive posters IDF has to deal with, the bias is VERY carefully hidden - but is there, nonetheless.

I take exception to your last analogy.

My argument is that this is a rehashing of arguments we have had before, and yes, I was correct to throw up the "spectre" of emotional manipulation as that is what is being attempted here. For instance, stating that the Arab nations wre going to "exterminate Isreal and her inhabitants... the boats can pick up the rest". Whilst this may be true (I don't know if it is and making no claims to whether it is or not) then what must be realised is that similiar comments are often made by conservative and zionists elements within Isreal concerning the palestinians. My comment saying that this is a "typical conservative trick" also stands ground - conservatives often try to take the moral high ground with arguments, so to give them an emotionl rather than rational basis.

I'm not really sure what your trying to say here - that I should be more subtle? Why? Thats the way I see it and thats what I have the right to say.

I take exception to your last analogy.

My argument is that this is a rehashing of arguments we have had before, and yes, I was correct to throw up the "spectre" of emotional manipulation as that is what is being attempted here. For instance, stating that the Arab nations wre going to "exterminate Isreal and her inhabitants... the boats can pick up the rest". Whilst this may be true (I don't know if it is and making no claims to whether it is or not) then what must be realised is that similiar comments are often made by conservative and zionists elements within Isreal concerning the palestinians. My comment saying that this is a "typical conservative trick" also stands ground - conservatives often try to take the moral high ground with arguments, so to give them an emotionl rather than rational basis.

I'm not really sure what your trying to say here - that I should be more subtle? Why? Thats the way I see it and thats what I have the right to say.

Ah. It seems my going out of my way to assume you were primarily joking was a wasted effort...

My problem is that you have managed to attack everything about the op - except what it was actually talking about. To me, this means you have no actual argument to make, but simply disagree in principle with the idea of defending any Israeli actions.

Which would, in fact, place you rather close to anti-Semitism (though not quite - you may simply be anti-Israel).

Now, in the post I have quoted above, you have actually made some arguments on the subject at hand, so I would have to retract that initial judgement. But that is what I would get from your first posting (top of page 3).

Which would, in fact, place you rather close to anti-Semitism (though not quite - you may simply be anti-Israel).


Thankyou for making that distinction. Anti-Isreal =/= Anti-Semitic.

And I wouldn't say i am anti-Isreal, more anti- their actions.

Thankyou for making that distinction. Anti-Isreal =/= Anti-Semitic.

And I wouldn't say i am anti-Isreal, more anti- their actions.

As I am, often. But in other cases I find their actions either justified, correct, or both.

I don't know if you do this or not, but it seems many here are unable to see both sides of the Israel/Palestine situation. This frustrates me.

I post facts and quote actual resolutions and the quotes of two of the most key people behind it (including the author of the resolution in question).

I'm presuming that you read this somewhere and believe it. You quote
British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced and authored the resolution, (note that author's intent is very important when interpreting any legal document) 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."

However thats a quote thats entirely misleading when given without context. My bold where it appears

Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.[16]

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(UN Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, Caradon et al, 1981 )


Please acknowledge you've read this.

Unfortunately someone I have never heard of over on this side of the pond.
I'm European.


Would you believe me if I told you there was a British MP called Lembit Opik?

Yes I know of that Liberal Democrat MP, formally engaged to a weather forecaster and now going out with one of the "Cheeky Girls".
Of Lithuanian descent I believe, hence the name.

Yes I know of that Liberal Democrat MP, formally engaged to a weather forecaster and now going out with one of the "Cheeky Girls".
Of Lithuanian descent I believe, hence the name.

Not the Cheeky girls now, Mr Opik.

Kinda like you're doing here :)
I'm not misrepresenting it. I'm presenting it as the author intended the Resolution. No man can interpret it and its intentions better than the man who authored it.

Nope. Try "debatable".
Lord Caradon (the author and therefore foremost authority on the resolution) begs to differ. If I may quote him again.

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

Blatant copy/paste from Wiki:

Look! Arguments for AND against!! My word, you would think there weren't a single one, since it was "false" :rolleyes:
People can try to make an argument one way or the other, but the facts remain that there is no higher authority on the meaning and intentions of the resolution than the man who authored it.

The wiki cites differences between the English and French. The fact remains that it was originally written in English and the author has stated what he meant by the wording. If the French version says something different, then some translator fucked up. We know what the resolution is supposed to say because the author even said he made it clear that Israel was not to return to June 4th borders.



...except international treaties, UN resolutions, and other international law. Then the intent doesn't really mean anything, it's the wording that's important.

The wording is important, and the author has stated why the wording was chosen. "The" and "all" weren't left out by mistake. Lord Caradon knew damn well what he was doing and has stated over and over that Israel doesn't need to go back to June 4th borders.


See above. And it would be a very weak case indeed, which does not have the support of many (any?) UN member states today.I would agree that the Sinai Penninsula pullout doesn't = compliance. I was merely stating that it could possible count. Either way, all of the subsequent resolutions passed just mention UNSCR 242 so further resolutions are asking Israel to comply with the wording which has been proven to mean not all of the territories.

Debatable.Not according to Caradon and the UNSC (based on their votes)

And on the other accords, it is relevant as it shows that parties involved in later negotiations recognize that UNSCR 242 doesn't require a 100% pullout.

People can try to make an argument one way or the other, but the facts remain that there is no higher authority on the meaning and intentions of the resolution than the man who authored it.


Then could you please what he said as quoted in my post page 3
linked here for convenience..... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12689723&postcount=43)

I'm presuming that you read this somewhere and believe it. You quote


However thats a quote thats entirely misleading when given without context. My bold where it appears



Please acknowledge you've read this.The quote still stands true.

As for Caradon's requests, Israel made numerous offers during Camp David. Guess what? Arafat turned down the offers without making a counter-proposal.

Israel offered the return of 100% of the Gaza Strip, 100% of East Jerusalem, and 95% of the other portions of the West Bank. This was 97% of Egyptian and Jordanian land (not including the Sinai) captured in 1967. It more than satisfied 242's requirements.

If Arafat made a counterproposal and didn't walk away to start the Intifada, he may have gotten more. He of course wanted a war.

http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Sep-02/230902.html
(originally from the Jerusalem Post)


How the war began

KHALED ABU TOAMEH

Jerusalem Post, Sep. 19, 2002

A chronology of Palestinian moves leading up to the outbreak of violence two years ago shows it was planned in advance and ignited over the Jerusalem issue

A few days after the failure of the Camp David summit in July 2000, the Palestinian Authority's monthly magazine, Al-Shuhada ("The Martyrs"), published the following letter on July 25: "From the negotiating delegation [At Camp David,] led by the commander and symbol, Abu Ammar (Yasser Arafat) to the brave Palestinian people, be prepared. The Battle for Jerusalem has begun."

The letter appeared in the aftermath of reports emanating from Camp David suggesting that the summit had failed because of Arafat's intransigence. According to PA sources, the letter was written by a senior Arafat adviser and approved by the PA chairman beforehand.

The letter was published in a magazine distributed only among PA security personnel. It did not appear in any of the daily newspapers published in Jerusalem or Ramallah. Hence the message Arafat was sending to his armed men was clear: "Be prepared for an all-out confrontation with Israel, because I refuse to accept Israeli and American dictates."

One month later - long after Arafat had returned to Gaza - the PA's (former) police commissioner, Gen. Ghazi Jabali, told the official Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida on August 14: "The Palestinian police will lead together with the noble sons of the Palestinian people, when the hour of confrontation arrives."

Freih Abu Middein, the PA Justice Minister, said he could see the writing on the wall. In an interview with the same newspaper published on August 24, 2000, he warned: "Violence is near and the Palestinian people are willing to sacrifice even 5,000 casualties." The statement came after a series of meetings that Arafat had held with his cabinet ministers.

Another official publication of the PA, Al-Sabah ("The Morning"), on August 30, 2000, echoed the tone of escalation when it declared a few days later: "We will advance and declare a general intifada for Jerusalem. The time for the intifada has arrived, the time for jihad has arrived."

The rhetorical escalation started even before Arafat and his entourage left Camp David. A PA official who was with Arafat said the PA Chairman was furious with Israel and the US because they had accused him of being responsible for the botched summit. He felt that both prime minister Ehud Barak and US president Bill Clinton were now seeking to isolate him by declaring that the Palestinian people deserved a better leadership.

Upon his return from Camp David, Arafat received a hero's welcome from his people because he was being portrayed as the Arab and Muslim leader who refused to compromise on their historic, national and religious rights. Public-opinion polls showed a dramatic rise in his popularity, and even his secular and religious rivals were now heaping praise on him for not compromising. Arafat told well-wishers who came to see him in Ramallah that he refused to become [Egyptian president Anwar] "Sadat No. 2," who was denounced by many Arabs for signing a separate peace treaty with Israel.

"Welcome Arafat - the hero of war and hero of peace," said one banner in the streets of Gaza as Arafat's motorcade made its way from the local airport to his office. Another read: "Jerusalem is in our eyes, tomorrow it will be in our hands."

Earlier in the day, hundreds of Palestinians marched in the city demanding a return to the intifada against Israel. Buoyed by the failure of Camp David, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad issued statements urging Arafat to abandon the peace talks with Israel and return to the armed struggle.

The two radical Islamic groups regarded the breakdown of Camp David as further evidence that Israel was not serious about reaching a just and comprehensive peace with the Palestinians. Their spokesmen also told Arafat that if the summit proved anything, it was the fact that the US remains fully biased toward Israel.

After the failure of Camp David, Arafat visited almost all the Arab states, except for Syria and Iraq, asking their leaders for their support for his position. He also visited a number of European countries in an effort to explain his stance.

"Jerusalem and its holy sites, especially al-Aksa mosque, belong to one billion Muslims and I don't have the right to give them up to anyone," he reportedly told the Arab kings and presidents.

The Arab leaders assured Arafat that they stand behind him, but his tour of other world capitals after Camp David highlighted the fact that, for the first time in years, international sympathies were now on the side of Israel. For Arafat, this signalled the beginning of his isolation in the international arena.

For nearly three decades the PLO leader became accustomed to receiving a red-carpet welcome by kings and heads of state all over the world. He also became used to hearing sympathetic words for him and the cause he represents from his hosts. Now things were beginning to look different for Arafat in the West.

US assistant secretary of state Edward Walker was dispatched on a 14-stop regional tour in a last-minute attempt to persuade its Arab allies to withdraw their support for Arafat's position, but by then it was too late.

AS the pressure on him mounted, Arafat became even more defiant when he declared that he would go ahead with plans to announce the creation of the State of Palestine on September 13, 2000. In an interview with a Saudi newspaper on August 1, Arafat said: "There is no retreat on the fixed timetable of the declaration of the state. It will be declared on the fixed time which is September 13, God willing, regardless of those who agree or disagree."

Almost all the Arab states gave Arafat their blessing for the state idea. The PA chairman also received a commitment of diplomatic recognition from South African President Thabo Mbeki, whose country then had a big impact on the decisions of many other Third World states. Arafat was so confident that he would obtain widespread support that he ordered the PA Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation to start training Palestinians for diplomatic jobs overseas.

But on September 10 Arafat and the central committee of the PLO were forced to postpone, yet again, the planned declaration of statehood. The decision only increased the sense of bitterness among top PA officials who accused the US of blindly backing Israel and misleading the rest of the world on the reasons for the failure of the Camp David summit.

In conjunction with the political offensive, which began almost immediately after Camp David, the PA was also preparing for a possible military confrontation with Israel. PA security officials interviewed in the local media openly talked about a looming armed confrontation. Some even warned that the PA areas would be turned into a "graveyard" for the IDF if Israel decided to reoccupy the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Their statements came in response to remarks made by former IDF chief of General Staff Shaul Mofaz, who warned that Israel would use tanks and jets if the Palestinians launched an armed offensive.

According to reports from Gaza in mid-August, some of the PA's paramilitary forces were holding battalion-level training exercises.

Moreover, many senior PA security officers were being sent to attend military training courses in countries such as Egypt, Yemen, Algeria and Pakistan. On the ground, Palestinians started feeling the tension when members of Force 17, Arafat's elite presidential guard, were seen digging trenches and heavily reinforcing their positions with sandbags. Within days, most of the PA police stations and bases looked like military fortresses.

As the Camp David summit was under way, Arafat's Fatah organization, the biggest faction of the PLO, started training Palestinian teenagers for the upcoming violence in 40 training camps throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Some PA officials and newspaper commentators also started calling for the adoption of the Hezbollah strategy, which, they believed, led to the withdrawal of the IDF from southern Lebanon a few months earlier. Hezbollah leaders, including secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, appeared on Arab satellite television networks to mock Arafat and his negotiators, arguing that Palestine could be liberated only through the use of force, and not at summits like the one held in Camp David.

BY NOW the atmosphere in the Palestinian street was one of "the eve of war." PA ministers and representatives stepped up their criticism of Israel and the US as part of the PA's efforts to refute accusations that it was responsible for the collapse of the Camp David talks and that the Palestinians had missed yet another historic opportunity.

PA-appointed imams in West Bank and Gaza Strip mosques began referring to Israel as "the Zionist enemy" and urged all Muslims to mobilise for the war against the "infidels." In the words of one Gazan preacher, "All weapons must be aimed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah, the cursed nation in the Koran, whom the Koran describes as monkeys and pigs, worshipers of the calf and idol worshipers."

Other imams spoke of the need and duty to liberate Palestine from the Zionist aggressors. This time the talk was not only about liberating the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Now the demand was for Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa and Ashkelon.

Israel was also being accused of distributing drugs among young Palestinian men and women in order to corrupt them and bring about the disintegration of Palestinian society. In addition to the drugs, the Israelis were also believed to be behind sexually-arousing chewing gum found in Palestinian shops. The alleged goal: to turn Palestinian women into prostitutes.

As the tensions intensified, PA officials this time accused Israel of spreading "radioactive belts" that cause cancer.

An August 3 poll conducted by the independent Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research indicated that two-thirds of Palestinians supported a new intifada against Israel. This was the first time since the signing of the Oslo Accords that a majority of Palestinians said they supported violence against Israel.

In an attempt to avoid the inevitable clash, senior Israeli and Palestinian officials, including PA Secretary-General Tayeb Abdel Rahim and Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh met to reduce tensions and prevent the outbreak of violence following the breakdown of the Camp David talks. The meetings were authorised by Arafat under pressure from Washington.

More than a year later, on the first anniversary of the intifada, West Bank Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti gave an interview on October 22 to the London-based Arabic newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat in which he admitted that he had played a direct role in igniting the intifada.

He said: "I knew that the end of September was the last period [of time] before the explosion, but when Sharon reached al-Aksa Mosque, this was the most appropriate moment for the outbreak of the intifada... The night prior to Sharon's visit, I participated in a panel on a local television station and I seized the opportunity to call on the public to go to al-Aksa Mosque in the morning, for it was not possible that Sharon would reach al-Haram al-Sharif [the Temple Mount] just so, and walk away peacefully. I finished and went to al-Aksa in the morning.... We tried to create clashes without success because of the differences of opinion that emerged with others in al-Aksa compound at the time.... After Sharon left, I remained for two hours in the presence of other people, we discussed the manner of response and how it was possible to react in all the cities and not just in Jerusalem. We contacted all [the Palestinian] factions."

Barghouti travelled to the Triangle area inside Israel later that day where he was to participate in a conference. He explained: "While we were in the car on the way to the Triangle, I prepared a leaflet in the name of the Higher Committee of Fatah, coordinated with the brothers [e.g., Hamas], in which we called for a reaction to what happened in Jerusalem."

Imad Faluji, the PA communications minister, admitted on October 11, 2001, that the violence had been planned in July, far in advance of Sharon's "provocation." He said: "Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to Al-Aksa Mosque, is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton. [Arafat] remained steadfast and challenged [Clinton]. He rejected the American terms and he did it in the heart of the US."

Sakher Habash, a member of Fatah's Central Committee, said in an interview with the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on December 7, 2000: "After the Camp David Summit it became clear to the Fatah movement, as brother Abu Ammar [Arafat] had warned, that the next phase requires us to prepare for conflict [with Israel], because Prime Minister Barak is not a partner capable of complying with our people's aspirations. In light of this estimation, Fatah was the most prepared for a conflict among all other [Palestinian] national movements. [At the Camp David Summit] we thought that President Clinton would be able to put pressure on the Israeli government before leaving the White House so that Barak would agree to a political solution acceptable to us. But it became clear that the American position coincides with the Israeli position: sharing sovereignty over al-Haram al-Sharif with us, and dividing east Jerusalem into four or five parts in order to guarantee Israeli control there.

"In light of the information, [after] analysing the political positions following the Camp David summit, and in accordance with what brother Abu Ammar said, it became clear to the Fatah movement that the next stage necessitates preparation for confrontation, because Prime Minister Barak is not a partner who can respond to our people's aspirations. Based on these assessments, Fatah was more prepared than the other movements for this confrontation. In order to play the role given to it, Fatah coordinated its administrative, civilian and sovereign apparatuses, and was not surprised by the outbreak of the current intifada... The Fatah movement believed that the phenomenon of comprehensive struggle would appear at the final settlement stage."

In October, almost two months after the intifada began, Arafat went to the Sharm e-Sheikh summit against the will of most of the Palestinian factions and some of his cabinet ministers. PA sources said Arafat's decision to go to the summit came largely in response to pressure from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which feared that the Israeli-Palestinian crisis was spinning out of control. As far as Arafat was concerned, prime minister Ehud Barak and his government were no longer peace partners.

As expected, the "cease-fire agreement" reached at Sharm e-Sheikh drew fire from many Palestinians, who believed Arafat was under immense pressure from Washington to comply. PA officials told Palestinian journalists that Arafat's acceptance of the agreement "was more out of courtesy for president Clinton and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who hosted the summit." Arafat himself later denied that he made any agreement with Barak. He rejected an Israeli and American request to call directly and personally on the Palestinians in the streets to show restraint and restore calm. "Arafat was really offended by the accusations that he was responsible for the failure of the Camp David talks," explained a Palestinian negotiator. "That's why he wasn't prepared to humiliate himself by calling for an end to the violence."

The intifada was actually the best thing that could have happened to Arafat. It came at the right time, because it turned the fury of the Palestinians away from the corrupt and inept regime that he had established in 1994. Moreover, the violence united Palestinian factions against the common enemy, Israel, and rallied the people behind Arafat's leadership. In a sense, the intifada saved Arafat and his self-rule government because it directed the anger and frustration towards Israel instead of the PA.

Another reason why Arafat didn't move quickly to end the violence in the first days of the intifada is the fact that he believed that it would enhance his position in any future peace negotiations. Arafat hoped to use the intifada, which he expected would last for a number of days or, at the most, a few weeks, to tell Israel and the world that this is one of the results of the breakdown of the peace talks.

One of Arafat's conclusions following Camp David is that the best way to extract more concessions from Israel would be to involve more countries in the peace process. One of his main goals now was to drag the Arab countries into the conflict with Israel. He repeatedly reminded the Arab and Muslim countries that Jerusalem and its holy sites were their responsibility too.

Arafat and the Palestinians were once again greatly disappointed by the lack of support from the Arab League Summit, held in Cairo in October 2000. There was plenty of lip-service but an unwillingness to do anything practical on the ground.

It is now clear that the past two years of violence were unleashed as part of a strategy to internationalise the conflict and force Israel into making further concessions. But the violent tactics spiralled out of control taking on a deadly momentum of their own. What remains to be seen is whether there is a way out.

The quote still stands true.


...sez he, going on to through up the old and now thoroughly battered "Arafat" straw man. So battered he looks better than the real thing did at the end.

The main claim that is misrepresented is that the resolution requires Israel to pull back to pre-1967 lines. This is a claim that is utterly false.
No, Israel is to withdraw. Logically that would be to 1967 lines until new ones are negotiated. Of course you could say, perhaps, that Israel should withdraw after negotiations. There is no way you can say that Israel has any right to -

1 - Occupy for 4 decades
2 - Build civillian settlements and encourage its population to move there.
3 - Annex Arab East Jerusalem
4 - Confiscate Arab land to facilitate 2
5 - Remove Arab residents from Arab East Jerusalem by "revoking residency" at the rate of nearly 1,000 a year.

I quote and bold again -

Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle

...sez he, going on to through up the old and now thoroughly battered "Arafat" straw man. So battered he looks better than the real thing did at the end.Arafat is relevant as he is one of the main reasons no negotiated settlement has been made. He and the majority of the Palestinians (who did elect him BTW). The fact remains that Israel tried to comply with 242. It's not Israel's fault that Arafat wasn't willing to cooperate. You can't negotiate when one partner leaves the table because he gets off by starting a war.


No, Israel is to withdraw. Logically that would be to 1967 lines until new ones are negotiated. Of course you could say, perhaps, that Israel should withdraw after negotiations.
Nowhere does the resolution demand immediate withdrawal. Negotiations are to occur first. Israel did negotiate and make an agreement with Egypt over the Sinai. That's because they had a partner who was willing to make peace.

When it comes to the Palestinians, there is no such man. Israel has negotiated time and time again, but the PLO isn't interested in negotiating. They didn't even make a counter proposal. Nothing is going to change when Hamas's charter is full of anti-semetic language, references the Protocols, and calls for Israel's destruction.

There is no way you can say that Israel has any right to -

1 - Occupy for 4 decades
2 - Build civillian settlements and encourage its population to move there.
3 - Annex Arab East Jerusalem
4 - Confiscate Arab land to facilitate 2
5 - Remove Arab residents from Arab East Jerusalem by "revoking residency" at the rate of nearly 1,000 a year.
These are all shameful, but they wouldn't have happened if the Palestinians had negotiated. Believe me, Israel doesn't want to have to devote much of their military resources to occupying these territories. They never even wanted the West Bank. Jordan's stupid entry into the war forced it though.


I quote and bold again -Israel has never annexed the West Bank and Gaza. They don't want to hold those territories, but no Palestinian leader has stepped up to make peace.

The fact also remains that Israel doesn't have to pull back to June 4 borders.

Nothing is going to change when Hamas's charter is full of anti-semetic language, references the Protocols, and calls for Israel's destruction.

"Historically we believe all Palestine belongs to Palestinians, but we're now talking about reality, about political solutions ... If Israel reached a stage where it was able to talk to Hamas, I don't think there would be a problem of negotiating with the Israelis" - Mohammed Ghazal of...

...you guessed it, Hamas! :p

Quoted from the New Statesman, 28/05/07

"Historically we believe all Palestine belongs to Palestinians, but we're now talking about reality, about political solutions ... If Israel reached a stage where it was able to talk to Hamas, I don't think there would be a problem of negotiating with the Israelis" - Mohammed Ghazal of...

...you guessed it, Hamas! :p

Quoted from the New Statesman, 28/05/07

When they stop firing rockets into Israel, stop putting anti-semitic propoganda on TV, and ammend their charter, I'll believe Hamas wants peace. They're just trying to say something that looks good in the press so some European nations and other Arab nations (like Egypt) give them aid. At the current time, Egypt and Jordan are really pissed off at the Palestinians as a whole.

I'm not misrepresenting it. I'm presenting it as the author intended the Resolution. No man can interpret it and its intentions better than the man who authored it.
You're presenting it as the final word in the argument. As such, you are indeed misrepresenting it. I noticed that you wanted to speak about the resolution, yet did not offer a single insight into the arguments of the other side.

Lord Caradon (the author and therefore foremost authority on the resolution) begs to differ. If I may quote him again.
Quote away. That doesn't make him more important.

People can try to make an argument one way or the other, but the facts remain that there is no higher authority on the meaning and intentions of the resolution than the man who authored it.
Ah, but you forget one thing:

He's mostly irrelevant today.

Why?

Because, as I said, international law (which includes resolutions) don't care particularly about original intent, especially the intent of one man.

This counts for a lot more in the interpretation of the treaty today:
SECTION 3. INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

Article 31
General rule of interpretation

1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:

(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;

(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;

(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;

(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.

4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.


Article 32
Supplementary means of interpretation

Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:

(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or

(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.


Article 33
Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages

1. When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail.

2. A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so agree.

3. The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text.

4. Except where a particular text prevails in accordance with paragraph 1, when a comparison of the authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning which the application of articles 31 and 32 does not remove, the meaning which best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.
This (http://web.archive.org/web/20050208040137/http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treatfra.htm) works for the interpretation of UN resolutions as well.

As you can see, all it is today is a suplementary means of interpretation. And as it is one that is controversial, it would be a factor but one without very much weight. So no, the author is in no position to settle the debate. Sorry about that.

Had your way been the true way, there would not have been any debate over Resolution 1441. They would simply have asked the authors. They didn't. Because it didn't matter.


The wiki cites differences between the English and French. The fact remains that it was originally written in English and the author has stated what he meant by the wording. If the French version says something different, then some translator fucked up. We know what the resolution is supposed to say because the author even said he made it clear that Israel was not to return to June 4th borders.
Yet the french one carries equal weight to the english one. It's the way the UN resolutions work. You can't simply disregard the french one.


The wording is important, and the author has stated why the wording was chosen. "The" and "all" weren't left out by mistake. Lord Caradon knew damn well what he was doing and has stated over and over that Israel doesn't need to go back to June 4th borders.
Again; The author matters very little. Especially today.

I would agree that the Sinai Penninsula pullout doesn't = compliance. I was merely stating that it could possible count. Either way, all of the subsequent resolutions passed just mention UNSCR 242 so further resolutions are asking Israel to comply with the wording which has been proven to mean not all of the territories.
But that's the point again. It hasn't been proven to mean that. As evident by the presence of a debate on the issue. It's never been completely resolved. So you assume too much.

Not according to Caradon and the UNSC (based on their votes)
Caradon doesn't matter; As for the UNSC... Debatable. See the wiki-cutout. Read the french version. Understand why there is a debate still to this day.

And on the other accords, it is relevant as it shows that parties involved in later negotiations recognize that UNSCR 242 doesn't require a 100% pullout.
It doesn't show that at all, as there is a debate about the meaning of 242. But hey, show me the palestinian authority that recognizes it as you say.

These are all shameful, but they wouldn't have happened if the Palestinians had negotiated.
...so they're forced to build settlements because the palestinians wouldn't negotiate - which they have tried to do for a long time, mind you?

When they stop firing rockets into Israel, stop putting anti-semitic propoganda on TV, and ammend their charter, I'll believe Hamas wants peace. They're just trying to say something that looks good in the press so some European nations and other Arab nations (like Egypt) give them aid. At the current time, Egypt and Jordan are really pissed off at the Palestinians as a whole.

When Israel stops: bulldozing houses, cutting down orange groves, building the wall, invading Gaza and the West Bank, arresting other nation's governments (re: Palestinian Authority), &c &c...

...I'll believe they want peace.

Until then, they're just saying things that look good in the press so the US will continue to give them aid.

:rolleyes:

Arafat is relevant as he is one of the main reasons no negotiated settlement has been made. .

Yes, he made them offer tax breaks for settlers.


. Believe me, Israel doesn't want to have to devote much of their military resources to occupying these territories. They never even wanted the West Bank......

Israel has never annexed the West Bank and Gaza.

No, they never really wanted all of it...just the best parts. Hence 400,000 settlers all told, in the West Bank and in and around Arab East Jerusalem.

If you mention suicide attacks, I'll mention "targeted killings".
If you mention rocket attacks, I'll mention unproportional response.
If you mention indiscriminate arrests and arbitrary detention, I'll mention kidnappings.
If you mention checkpoint abuse and severe restrictions on the freedom of movement, I'll mention propaganda on the TV stations and indoctrination of children.
If you mention torture and abuse, I'll say "Which side were you talking about again?"
If you mention disregard for civilian life and collateral damage, I'll say "yup".
If you mention snipers targeting civilians or human shields...

I'll say "Both sides are fucked up, and no side really show that they want peace - they sure aen't willing to sacrifice anything to get peace an security. Neither side is. And as always, it's the civilians on both sides that end up paying the price..."

"Both sides are fucked up, and no side really show that they want peace - they sure aen't willing to sacrifice anything to get peace an security. Neither side is. And as always, it's the civilians on both sides that end up paying the price..."

Actually, you're kinda wrong as well as being kinda right. Both sides want peace - I believe in Israel this is known as the 70/70 Problem; 70% of Israelis want peace AND 70% want a stronger military response - but both sides also want to fight back.

The Palestinians are resisting an unjust invasion and occupation.
The Israelis are resisting the Arab threat.

Both sides are willing to sacrifice for peace (and have), the problem is that both sides have extremists with a vested interest in continuing the war. Which is a shame.

Unfortunately someone I have never heard of over on this side of the pond.

Would you believe me if I told you there was a British MP called Lembit Opik?

Actualy its Lembit Öpik but I guess you guys simply dont have ö letter at keyboard:p

Actually, you're kinda wrong as well as being kinda right. Both sides want peace - I believe in Israel this is known as the 70/70 Problem; 70% of Israelis want peace AND 70% want a stronger military response - but both sides also want to fight back.

The Palestinians are resisting an unjust invasion and occupation.
The Israelis are resisting the Arab threat.

Both sides are willing to sacrifice for peace (and have), the problem is that both sides have extremists with a vested interest in continuing the war. Which is a shame.

Yeah, I'm overdoing it on purpose. I want to get the point across that no side is blameless in this situation, and it's not helpful to claim that side A did this 10 years ago, because side B did that 20 years ago.

And when I talk about sides, I mean the governments and leadership. I have no doubt that the mainstream israeli and palestinian civilian only wants to live in peace and take care of their families.

And they're not willing to secrifice either enough or the right / nessesary things in my mind. I do agree that it seems that some people have a vested interest in keeping this going though...

I honestly don't think the Russians have realized it themselves. Just look at the Polonium 210 poisoning case and the actions of Putin.

They're already here, YOU FOOL!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLe6fhBejNI)

And when I talk about sides, I mean the governments and leadership. I have no doubt that the mainstream israeli and palestinian civilian only wants to live in peace and take care of their families.
Exactly.

From some reports, you’d think that every single Palestinian national was laughing manically, blowing up children, while every single Israeli national was sitting on a bulldozer, knocking some poor granny’s house over.

When Israel stops: bulldozing houses, cutting down orange groves, building the wall, invading Gaza and the West Bank, arresting other nation's governments (re: Palestinian Authority), &c &c...

...I'll believe they want peace.

Until then, they're just saying things that look good in the press so the US will continue to give them aid.

:rolleyes:Israel has negotiated and has shown to be wiling to give up at least 97% of the land. (more could've been offered if Arafat actually negotiated). All the Palestinians have done is refuse peace at every step. When have they been an honest partner? Never. They were given a golden opportunity in 2000 and Arafat chose war.

Wow IDF, a new low even for you, lets celebrate the foundation of a terrorist ultranationalist state based on racial segregation of arab minorities, which colonises arab land with crazy settlers. Israel does not want a Palestinian state, because if that happened they are afraid that they would have to stop bombing civilians to instill fear in what they consider 'a subject people'. I think it's clear that most Israelis are sick of the Zionists who have hijacked their countries, I believe Olmert was run out of a town recently being called 'murderer' by crowds. The Zionists want to continue to play the holocaust card to continue the endless perpetration of violence and revenge.

You're presenting it as the final word in the argument. As such, you are indeed misrepresenting it. I noticed that you wanted to speak about the resolution, yet did not offer a single insight into the arguments of the other side.
I discussed the interpretation of the resolution. Caradon is very clear with what he meant. The treatment of 242 by other governments during both Camp David Accords and Oslo show that they interpret the resolution the same way Caradon does.

Quote away. That doesn't make him more important.
You're a fool if you don't understand that no man knows the resolution better than the author. Unless you can read his mind, his public statements are the final word on what the wording of the resolution's wording was intended to mean.

Ah, but you forget one thing:

He's mostly irrelevant today.

Why?

Because, as I said, international law (which includes resolutions) don't care particularly about original intent, especially the intent of one man.

This counts for a lot more in the interpretation of the treaty today:

This (http://web.archive.org/web/20050208040137/http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treatfra.htm) works for the interpretation of UN resolutions as well.

As you can see, all it is today is a suplementary means of interpretation. And as it is one that is controversial, it would be a factor but one without very much weight. So no, the author is in no position to settle the debate. Sorry about that.

Had your way been the true way, there would not have been any debate over Resolution 1441. They would simply have asked the authors. They didn't. Because it didn't matter.

From your own source:


Article 4
Non-retroactivity of the present Convention

Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.

The Vienna Convention is NOT retroactive. I should note that the site states the date of it is 1969. UNSCR 242 is from 1967. You lose. Your point would hold water for anything after the Convention in 1969. Since your point is irrelevant, Caradon's word is very important here.


Yet the french one carries equal weight to the english one. It's the way the UN resolutions work. You can't simply disregard the french one.

Some lowly paid aide made a shitty translation. Since this was drafted and passed pre-1969, author's intent is important.


Again; The author matters very little. Especially today.

True for resolutions passed today, not true for one passed in 1967.

But that's the point again. It hasn't been proven to mean that. As evident by the presence of a debate on the issue. It's never been completely resolved. So you assume too much.
The issue seems to have been settled by governments involved in the negotiations as they recognize Israel can retain some of the territories. See Camp David 1978, Oslo Accords, and Camp David 2000. People who are ilinformed may debate it, but the governments who understand it know damn well what it means.

Caradon doesn't matter; As for the UNSC... Debatable. See the wiki-cutout. Read the french version. Understand why there is a debate still to this day.
He does matter since the Vienna Convention isn't retroactive. I already covered the French thing. In case of any discreprancy, Caradon is the final source.


It doesn't show that at all, as there is a debate about the meaning of 242. But hey, show me the palestinian authority that recognizes it as you say.Once again, most nations involved in the negotiations have accepted that 242 allows Israel to retain some land.

Wow IDF, a new low even for you, lets celebrate the foundation of a terrorist ultranationalist state based on racial segregation of arab minorities, which colonises arab land with crazy settlers. Israel does not want a Palestinian state, because if that happened they are afraid that they would have to stop bombing civilians to instill fear in what they consider 'a subject people'. I think it's clear that most Israelis are sick of the Zionists who have hijacked their countries, I believe Olmert was run out of a town recently being called 'murderer' by crowds. The Zionists want to continue to play the holocaust card to continue the endless perpetration of violence and revenge.You just spout propaganda without any backing.

I'd expect it from an anti-semitic Holocaust denier like yourself. Since Zionism is merely supporting the idea of Israel's right to exist, you support genocide against the Jews. Any person who supports a 2 state solution is by definition a Zionist because they support Israel's right to exist. You are a sick demented person. I also think I can call Godwin here.


The Zionists probably want to replace it with a military base, or a Synagogue that couples as a Bank too.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12338929&postcount=2

If it happened, where exactly did it happen?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12493449&postcount=82



Historical persecution is not an excuse for an ultranationalist group to annex territory and oppress a population using the 'Holocaust' and other perceived injustices as pretext.



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12493428&postcount=78

IMO can Zionist supporter is a legitimate target for helping such an ethnic-ultranationalist demagogy in it's terrible deeds.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12297251&postcount=116

Well when most Israel/Palestine stories have a pro-Israel slant on them, an 'exaggerated' source is the only way to get anywhere close to the reality of the story. The Pro-Israel lobby in the west after all does have alot of money.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12222529&postcount=63

So the murder of millions of WWII civilians is questionable, but the murder of 7 million Jews is not? I think all historical information should always be challenged and debated, it's a shame such a taboo has been put over a minority number of those murdered in WWII.

http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12347986&postcount=140

Wow IDF, you must keep a copy of all those quotes of mine, excluding the first one which is out of context because it was a joke, I stand by all those comments, and anyone who read the context threads (which you have so omitted) they would see the truth and logicality of my statements, even so I support them even in the bias form you presented them.

Plus, you still fail the answer the fact that Olmert and his government have like a 2% approval rating or something like that, because of their overtly violent and belligerant policies of Zionism which put all the Israeli people under threat.

Israel has negotiated and has shown to be wiling to give up at least 97% of the land. (more could've been offered if Arafat actually negotiated). All the Palestinians have done is refuse peace at every step. When have they been an honest partner? Never. They were given a golden opportunity in 2000 and Arafat chose war.

And Taba? O...that doesn't count, does it? By the way, who was it who visited the Temple mount in an official capacity despite international pleas that he not do so, which lead to riots, deaths, and the start of the "intifada"...


You're a fool if you don't understand that no man knows the resolution better than the author. Unless you can read his mind, his public statements are the final word on what the wording of the resolution's wording was intended to mean..

Yep. And heres the bit you left out again.....


Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.[16]

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(UN Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, Caradon et al, 1981 )

*Snip

You don't need to convice me (though I read it anyway). I already am pro-Israel. I USED to be anti, listening to their mistreatment of Palistinians :rolleyes:. All it took to change my mind was the History Book. Once I read the history of modern Israel, I understood fully what was going on. That damn media is so full-of-it.

IDF is good for a laugh, maybe he should go and live for a week in the Abu Dis Ghetto and see how he likes it.

I post facts and quote actual resolutions and the quotes of two of the most key people behind it (including the author of the resolution in question).

Unlike Moore who can only do voice-overs. He asked a pro-Iraq senator or something about why doesn't he send HIS kids to go fight, but cut-off right before the guy said his kids ARE fighting in Iraq. :p
Geeze, it's easy to find somthing dumb about Bush, the fact that Moore needs to lie is a mark of considerable stupidity.

You don't need to convice me (though I read it anyway). I already am pro-Israel. I USED to be anti, listening to their mistreatment of Palistinians :rolleyes:. All it took to change my mind was the History Book. Once I read the history of modern Israel, I understood fully what was going on. That damn media is so full-of-it.

And might I ask what this "History Book" contained?

And might I ask what this "History Book" contained?

No doubt a scathing indictment of inherent liberal bias pertaining to international media coverage of Zionism.

Here's an interesting nugget from the Wikipedia article on Zionism:

Albert Einstein was one of the prominent supporters of Zionism, and was active in the establishment of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which published in 1930 a volume titled About Zionism: Speeches and Lectures by Professor Albert Einstein, and to which Einstein bequeathed his papers. However, he opposed nationalism and expressed skepticism about whether a Jewish nation-state was the best solution. He said: "I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks."

Hmmm.

Israel has negotiated and has shown to be wiling to give up at least 97% of the land.

What the fuck kind of logic is that?

I beat you up and squat in your house.

But I'll be generous. After a long period of time, I'll offer to give you back the garage.

I'm stunned the 'offer' was refused.

I discussed the interpretation of the resolution. Caradon is very clear with what he meant. The treatment of 242 by other governments during both Camp David Accords and Oslo show that they interpret the resolution the same way Caradon does.

You're a fool if you don't understand that no man knows the resolution better than the author. Unless you can read his mind, his public statements are the final word on what the wording of the resolution's wording was intended to mean.


From your own source:



The Vienna Convention is NOT retroactive. I should note that the site states the date of it is 1969. UNSCR 242 is from 1967. You lose. Your point would hold water for anything after the Convention in 1969. Since your point is irrelevant, Caradon's word is very important here.
Dear lord, you really don't know anything about international laws, do you? Remember that this is a law on interpreting treaties? It does not work directly on interpreting resolutions, but it is an expression of customary international law - i.e. they wrote down the customary rules.

Customary international law has not changed in this area, and the Vienna convention outlines the rules for interpretation also for resolutions and treaties dating before the Vienna Convention itself. So no, I don't "lose" yet.

I would have thought you knew something about this, since you bothered to make a thread about it...

Some lowly paid aide made a shitty translation. Since this was drafted and passed pre-1969, author's intent is important.
No. What the UNSC voted on is what's important. They voted on both the french and english version.


True for resolutions passed today, not true for one passed in 1967.
Wrong


He does matter since the Vienna Convention isn't retroactive. I already covered the French thing. In case of any discreprancy, Caradon is the final source.
Wrong.

Once again, most nations involved in the negotiations have accepted that 242 allows Israel to retain some land.
Really?

Dear lord, you really don't know anything about international laws, do you? Remember that this is a law on interpreting treaties? It does not work directly on interpreting resolutions, but it is an expression of customary international law - i.e. they wrote down the customary rules.

Customary international law has not changed in this area, and the Vienna convention outlines the rules for interpretation also for resolutions and treaties dating before the Vienna Convention itself. So no, I don't "lose" yet.

I would have thought you knew something about this, since you bothered to make a thread about it...

The problem is that UNSC Resolution 242 is NOT a treaty. Please show me the part of the Vienna Convention that says it applies to resolutions and not just treaties. Please provide evidence to back this up.

Another point is from your original quotation of the Conventioin
Article 32
Supplementary means of interpretation

Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:

(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or

(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

The key here is that preparatory work and the circumstances of it are allowed to be viewed as supplementary means of interpreting it.

Back to the language difference, one of the people working on the treatie tells this story

It is known from an outside source that the sponsors resisted all attempts to insert words such as "all" or "the" in the text of this phrase in the English text of the resolution, and it will not be overlooked that when that very word "all" erroneously crept into the Spanish translation of the draft, it was subsequently removed

This clearly shows what the treaty is supposed to mean. The word was removed from the Spanish translation because it was not supposed to mean "all of the territories." This is pretty damn clear.

Another quote from the wikipedia section you quoted says this:

It is an historical fact, which nobody has ever attempted to deny, that the negotiations between the members of the Security Council, and with the other interested parties, which preceded the adoption of that resolution, were conducted on the basis of English texts, ultimately consolidated in Security Council document S/8247. [...] Many experts in the French language, including academics with no political axe to grind, have advised that the French translation is an accurate and idiomatic rendering of the original English text, and possibly even the only acceptable rendering into French."[...] "[o]n the question of concordance, the French representative [to the 1379th meeting of the Security Council on November 16, 1967] was explicit in stating that the French text was "identical" with the English text.

The only reason the French version seems to say something different is because of the French language structure. Now I am no expert on French, but it seems pretty damn clear that the 15 members of the UNSC who voted on the resolution knew damn well what they were passing and agreed that Israel should not have to withdraw from all of the territories.

To further back my point, I present another quote:

both the British and the Americans pointed out that 242 was a British resolution; therefore, the English language text was authoritative and would prevail in any dispute over interpretation

To take a more legal approach, there is a legal principle called expressio unius est exclusio alterius. It basically means that is language was left off of a draft, it was done so intentionally.

No. What the UNSC voted on is what's important. They voted on both the french and english version.
Evidence above answers this point


Wrong

Please show me where it says that it can be used to interpret resolutions passed today let alone ones passed in 1967. You have failed to provide evidence.

Wrong.already covered.

Really?
Camp David 1978, Oslo, Camp David 2000, Road Map in 2003, etc.

What the fuck kind of logic is that?

I beat you up and squat in your house.

But I'll be generous. After a long period of time, I'll offer to give you back the garage.

I'm stunned the 'offer' was refused.They offered 97% of what the Palestinians wanted. If Arafat had actually talked to Barak and made counter proposals, he may have even gotten 99% is not all of it.

Israel was more than fair, but the Palestinians chose war.

Now you seriously haven't added anything to this thread. You've just been talking out of your ass because you have nothing.

And Taba? O...that doesn't count, does it? By the way, who was it who visited the Temple mount in an official capacity despite international pleas that he not do so, which lead to riots, deaths, and the start of the "intifada"...
Give me one reason why any man should be permitted from traveling to a site that is holy to his religion. What are you trying to say? Muslims are allowed to visit a site holy to them while Jews can't visit it even if it is holy to them too?

The Mitchell Commission came to the following conclusion

The Sharon visit did not cause the Al Aksa Intifada.

Also, my source cited in my last post responding to you proves without a doubt that the intifada was innevitable because Arafat couldn't accept peace. He wanted a war even if it meant rejecting the best offer Israel will ever offer Palestinians. And you know what? The next time they negotiate I hope Israel offers less just to punish the Palestinians for refusing to even negotiate at Camp David.

Taba only occurred because the Palestinians were getting their assed kicked. Arafat still refused to make any concessions so a compromise couldn't be reached.

What Barak offered at Camp David proves without a doubt that Israel attempted to make peace while Arafat only wanted blood.


Yep. And heres the bit you left out again.....
What he says is that the war alone isn't justification for annexing the land. The key is that quote doesn't say that there isn't other justification for the action. Caradon certainly believed that the Arab aggression leading to the war justified Israel getting some of the territory to make a defensible border.

Wow IDF, you must keep a copy of all those quotes of mine, excluding the first one which is out of context because it was a joke, I stand by all those comments, and anyone who read the context threads (which you have so omitted) they would see the truth and logicality of my statements, even so I support them even in the bias form you presented them.

Plus, you still fail the answer the fact that Olmert and his government have like a 2% approval rating or something like that, because of their overtly violent and belligerant policies of Zionism which put all the Israeli people under threat.

You only said your first comment was a joke after pages of people ripping on you. You claim that it was a joke, but then you make the same racist assumption when you say that Jewish money controls the media. That is a very racist and anti-semitic claim to make. It is very much like claims made in "The International Jew," "Mein Kempf," and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I'm sure you are very aware of those works as they probably are your favorites to read.

By definition a Zionist is a person who supports the idea of Israel's right to exist. Let me ask you this, do you seriously believe that all of those people deserve to die? You sure as hell said that in a post. I'm pretty certain most people will agree that Israel has a right to exist, just as they want a Palestinian State to exist. Those people who believe in the 2 state solution are by the definition Zionists.

You make other posts questioning the Holocaust. That shows without a doubt you are a damn Nazi. No wonder most of Israel's critics on this board go to excessive lengths to try to distance themselves from you and your racist rants.

Here's an interesting nugget from the Wikipedia article on Zionism:



Hmmm.

Before the Holocaust, most Jews didn't see the need for a Jewish State. Especially in Europe. Anti-semitism had seemed to had disappeared in Western Europe over the last century. The Holocaust changed all of those perceptions. Einstein's quote is what many Jews thought in 1930. Fifteen years later, most of those opinions were changed.

Give me one reason why any man should be permitted from traveling to a site that is holy to his religion. .

The same reason the President of Iran can't travel to the Al Aqsa mosque.



[
Taba only occurred because the Palestinians were getting their assed kicked. Arafat still refused to make any concessions so a compromise couldn't be reached..

Entirely untrue, the Israeli side broke off to fight the general election.


[
What he says is that the war alone isn't justification for annexing the land. The key is that quote doesn't say that there isn't other justification for the action. Caradon certainly believed that the Arab aggression leading to the war justified Israel getting some of the territory to make a defensible border.

He says -

Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war.

What part of that don't you get?

And might I ask what this "History Book" contained?

You may. It explained the formation of Israel. You see Hitler wanted to dump Jews, and no-one would take them. Germany was for "za Germans". Well, there was no Jew-Land for the Jews, unlike today so Hitler killed 6 million of them instead.
Next, there were already a considerable amount of Jews in Palistine, and the Muslims there already had many native nations. Israel was fromed, and the "Palistinians" wouldn't accept part-of-the-state, they'd only settle for the whole damn thing, so they got zip.
Then came onslaught of wars, and Isreal fought for survival, because now they finally had a nation of their own even though it was but a sliver on the map, and they weren't going to give-it-up to a bunch of aggressors who already had a nation of their own. Then I read about the Suez Canal, and in my opinion Isreal was fully justified in their attack on Egypt.
Fast-foward: the Palistinians are whining that Jews don't deserve a nation, and Israel suffers from the cowardly Yon Kipper attack, which despte it's initial damage, Israel recovered. So they hold certain strategic land to prevent these wackos from charging them again, people whine.
Comming to the more recent: Koffi Annon got pissed that Israel *GASP* tried to free a hostage. Israel's enemies cry "see, they can't be trusted!".
Then you have the President of Iran saying "I would glady kill half of Iran's population, if it would kill every Jewish man, woman, and child in the world!"

If you don't agree with me, you should at least see my point-of-view.

the "Palistinians" wouldn't accept part-of-the-state, they'd only settle for the whole damn thing, so they got zip.

Do you "quote" "Palistinians" because

a) You can't spell the word
b) You hope to diminish use of the word and thus, the people

or

c) You don't believe there is such a thing as a Palestinian

?

Do you "quote" "Palistinians" because

a) You can't spell the word
b) You hope to diminish use of the word and thus, the people

or

c) You don't believe there is such a thing as a Palestinian

?

Eh? Well, the fact that is was used as a race, rather a term of someone living in Palestine is what annoys me. They may live in Palestine, but they aren't a member if the race like they make it out to be.
For instance there is French, and then there is "French".

Eh? Well, the fact that is was used as a race, rather a term of someone living in Palestine is what annoys me. They may live in Palestine, but they aren't a member if the race like they make it out to be.
For instance there is French, and then there is "French".

Who makes "Palestinians" out to be a "race?" Who?

Same people who think French are their own race, perhaps? People like you?

Eh? Well, the fact that is was used as a race, rather a term of someone living in Palestine is what annoys me. They may live in Palestine, but they aren't a member if the race like they make it out to be.
For instance there is French, and then there is "French".Palestinians is only a short term for Palestinian Arabs. Just as Alsaciens is short for Alsacian French. Nevertheless Palestinians are Palestinians and what your ideas of race are does not change who they are. The difference between Arabs and Palestinians is in fact much like the difference between Hebrews in general and Israelites in particular in biblical terms.

Who makes "Palestinians" out to be a "race?" Who?

Same people who think French are their own race, perhaps? People like you?

Yes, they are two very distinct things. The French are desended from the Franks, and have distinct bloodline. Then there is a French citizen, which functions the same, but is in fact different.
"Palestinians" are called that by race, rather then area of residence. Many Jews were born in Palestine, and have a common bloodline there, and infact, it's their point of racial origin.
Also, most of the countries in that region are obscenely nationalistic, so it makes things difficult, it gives them the impression (and sadly this is the way they think) that that region rightfully belongs to a race called the "Palestinians", and that the Jews, a race often considered dirty there, don't have a nation of their own, and don't deserve one.
Every race deserves to be proud of their heritage and motherland, and every race should have one. That's why the Europeans were taken out of power in Africa, even though many of them had ran it and had their families in it for hundreds of years. Africans can't be proud of their heritage and nation when whites are running it for them, now can they?
The same applies for Israel, except it's not nearly a whole continent.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I am a Nazi apparently.

You may. It explained the formation of Israel. You see Hitler wanted to dump Jews, and no-one would take them. Germany was for "za Germans". Well, there was no Jew-Land for the Jews, unlike today so Hitler killed 6 million of them instead..

Which has to do with what, exactly? The project to establish a Jewish state started in the 1800's. Is this meant to justify treating the Palestinians like shit in 2007?


Next, there were already a considerable amount of Jews in Palistine,
..

Not really....However.....

and the Muslims there already had many native nations. Israel was fromed, and the "Palistinians" wouldn't accept part-of-the-state, they'd only settle for the whole damn thing, so they got zip...

"muslim" is a religous affiliation. There are many catholic nationalities within Europe, each with their own seperate traditions.....

It was the neighbouring states who attacked. During the fighting, the Palestinians were forced, either directly or indirectly, to flee from their homes.



Then came onslaught of wars, and Isreal fought for survival, because now they finally had a nation of their own even though it was but a sliver on the map, and they weren't going to give-it-up to a bunch of aggressors who already had a nation of their own. ...

The Palesitinians have no state of their own.


Fast-foward: the Palistinians are whining that Jews don't deserve a nation, and Israel suffers from the cowardly Yon Kipper attack, which despte it's initial damage, Israel recovered. So they hold certain strategic land to prevent these wackos from charging them again, people whine.


If they are holding land as a buffer to prevent attack, why are they putting civillians there?


Then you have the President of Iran saying "I would glady kill half of Iran's population, if it would kill every Jewish man, woman, and child in the world!"


Have you a link to where he said that please?



If you don't agree with me, you should at least see my point-of-view.

You are unaware of many of the facts.

Yes, they are two very distinct things. The French are desended from the Franks, and have distinct bloodline.

You know, if this was 1920 and I believed in nazi science, I would agree with you.


"Palestinians" are called that by race, rather then area of residence.

By whom?

You and your strawmen.

Also, most of the countries in that region are obscenely nationalistic, so it makes things difficult, it gives them the impression (and sadly this is the way they think) that that region rightfully belongs to a race called the "Palestinians",

Nonsense. It is YOU who is saying that they're a race. Palestinians are a people, a nation perhaps, a culture, with a common state lasting for many thousands of years. Do some research. What is making this difficult here is your insistence on outdated nonsense about "bloodline" racialism.

and that the Jews, a race often considered dirty there, don't have a nation of their own, and don't deserve one.

I consider you dirty for asserting that the Jews are a "race."


Every race deserves to be proud of their heritage and motherland, and every race should have one.

So, basically, you ARE a nazi.

Minus the power and influence.

That's why the Europeans were taken out of power in Africa, even though many of them had ran it and had their families in it for hundreds of years. Africans can't be proud of their heritage and nation when whites are running it for them, now can they?

Oh, those poor colonial invaders. Let's all feel sorry for the European "race" who was so cruelly and unfairly ousted.

Go spew your fucking filth at Stormfront.com, or somewhere like that.

If the Jews actually state a claim to the land based on race, then they would have to kick out their 20% arab population and every other ethnic minority living in Israel, by the time they actually only had proper racial 'Jews' left, they would barely have a population left. Other than that, the only claim they have is by military annexation and armed occupation of the territorial, which isn't exactly a legitimate claim.

Palestinians are a people, a nation perhaps, a culture, with a common state lasting for many thousands of years.Nope.

Nope.

The term "Palestine" derives from the word Philistine, the name of a non-Semitic ethnic group, originating from Southern Greece, closely related to early Mycenaean civilization. Inhabiting a smaller area on the southern coast called Philistia, whose borders approximate the modern Gaza Strip, Philistia encompassed the five cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath.

Egyptian texts of the temple at Medinet Habu, record a people called the P-r-s-t (conventionally Peleset), one of the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III's reign. This is considered very likely to be a reference to the Philistines. The Hebrew name Peleshet (Hebrew: פלשת Pəléshseth), usually translated as Philistia in English, is used in the Bible to denote their southern coastal region.

The Assyrian emperor Sargon II called the region the Palashtu in his Annals. By the time of Assyrian rule in 722 BCE, the Philistines had become "part and parcel of the local population." In 586 BCE, when Chaldean troops commanded by the Babylonian empire carried off significant numbers of the population into slavery, the distinctly Philistine character of the coastal cities ceased to exist.

In the 5th century BCE, Herodotus wrote in Greek of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinêi" (whence Latin: Palaestina, whence English: Palestine). The boundaries of the area he referred to were not explicitly stated, but Josephus used the name only for the smaller coastal area, Philistia. Ptolemy also used the term. In Latin, Pliny mentions a region of Syria that was "formerly called Palaestina" among the areas of the Eastern Mediterranean.

During the Roman period, the Iudaea Province (including Samaria) covered most of Israel and the Palestinian territories. But following the Bar Kokhba rebellion in the 2nd century, as part of a dual program of cooptation and forced migration, the Romans tried to erase the Jewish connection to the land of Judea, renaming it Syria Palaestina (Latin: Syria Palaestina) (including Judea) and Samaria

During the Byzantine Period, this entire region (including Syria Palestine, Samaria, and Galilee) was renamed Palaestina and then subdivided into Diocese I and II. The Byzantines also renamed an area of land including the Negev, Sinai, and the west coast of the Arabian Peninsula as Palaestina Salutoris, sometimes called Palaestina III. Since the Byzantine Period, the Byzantine borders of Palaestina (I and II) have served as a name for the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

19th Century sources define Palestine as lying between the sea and the caravan route, presumably the Hejaz-Damascus route east of the Jordan River valley. Others describe it as being between the sea and the desert.

The term "Palestine" derives from the word Philistine, the name of a non-Semitic ethnic group, originating from Southern Greece, closely related to early Mycenaean civilization. Inhabiting a smaller area on the southern coast called Philistia, whose borders approximate the modern Gaza Strip, Philistia encompassed the five cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath.

Egyptian texts of the temple at Medinet Habu, record a people called the P-r-s-t (conventionally Peleset), one of the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III's reign. This is considered very likely to be a reference to the Philistines. The Hebrew name Peleshet (Hebrew: פלשת Pəléshseth), usually translated as Philistia in English, is used in the Bible to denote their southern coastal region.

The Assyrian emperor Sargon II called the region the Palashtu in his Annals. By the time of Assyrian rule in 722 BCE, the Philistines had become "part and parcel of the local population." In 586 BCE, when Chaldean troops commanded by the Babylonian empire carried off significant numbers of the population into slavery, the distinctly Philistine character of the coastal cities ceased to exist.

In the 5th century BCE, Herodotus wrote in Greek of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinêi" (whence Latin: Palaestina, whence English: Palestine). The boundaries of the area he referred to were not explicitly stated, but Josephus used the name only for the smaller coastal area, Philistia. Ptolemy also used the term. In Latin, Pliny mentions a region of Syria that was "formerly called Palaestina" among the areas of the Eastern Mediterranean.

During the Roman period, the Iudaea Province (including Samaria) covered most of Israel and the Palestinian territories. But following the Bar Kokhba rebellion in the 2nd century, as part of a dual program of cooptation and forced migration, the Romans tried to erase the Jewish connection to the land of Judea, renaming it Syria Palaestina (Latin: Syria Palaestina) (including Judea) and Samaria

During the Byzantine Period, this entire region (including Syria Palestine, Samaria, and Galilee) was renamed Palaestina and then subdivided into Diocese I and II. The Byzantines also renamed an area of land including the Negev, Sinai, and the west coast of the Arabian Peninsula as Palaestina Salutoris, sometimes called Palaestina III. Since the Byzantine Period, the Byzantine borders of Palaestina (I and II) have served as a name for the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

19th Century sources define Palestine as lying between the sea and the caravan route, presumably the Hejaz-Damascus route east of the Jordan River valley. Others describe it as being between the sea and the desert.
Thanks for so elaborately agreeing with me. I in fact know who the Pelastoi/Pelasgoi were.
Subsequently Palestinians, i.e. Palestinian Arabs have not had a common state lasting for many thousands of years.

Thanks for so elaborately agreeing with me. I in fact know who the Pelastoi/Pelasgoi were.
Subsequently Palestinians, i.e. Palestinian Arabs have not had a common state lasting for many thousands of years.

I did not mean a single state which lasted continuously, but a state that nevertheless has as ancient and legitimate an origin as, oh, for example, Israel.

And really, "Palestinian Arabs?" Is this common for you to describe people by both nationality and ethnicity? Some people do that. Russian Jews. Italian Americans. African Jamaican American.

I did not mean a single state which lasted continuously, but a state that nevertheless has as ancient and legitimate an origin as, oh, for example, Israel.

And really, "Palestinian Arabs?" Is this common for you to describe people by both nationality and ethnicity? Some people do that. Russian Jews. Italian Americans. African Jamaican American.Palestine is not the name of a nation, but of a geographical region or administrative division. Palestinians are Arabs. They have been dubbed Palestinians because they are those Arabs who live in Palestine. And this is what the conflict is: Arabs who now name themselves and are named Palestinians against the intruding Jews who now name themselves and are named Israel (in memory of the other, ancient, group of people who came to the land to create havoc, and in memory of the person who usurped his heritage).

Before the Holocaust, most Jews didn't see the need for a Jewish State. Especially in Europe. Anti-semitism had seemed to had disappeared in Western Europe over the last century. The Holocaust changed all of those perceptions. Einstein's quote is what many Jews thought in 1930. Fifteen years later, most of those opinions were changed.

From http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v19n4p06.htm:
Einstein supported Zionism, though he immediately saw the dangers which the foundation of Israel entailed and refused the offer to become Israel's second president. Privately he expressed reservations about the wisdom of the existence of a Jewish state: "My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain - especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks…"

He argued that peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Jews was a prerequisite to healthy development of a Jewish home in Palestine. In 1955 he said that Israel should maintain a "policy of neutrality between East and West and complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst…. The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people."

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952.
I don't kind I would be too optimistic to say that if he became President alot of the problems Israel and the Palestinians have today would not exist. It's a shame to see that Israel and Palestine have succumbed to and endless cycle of revenge.

I don't kind I would be too optimistic to say that if he became President alot of the problems Israel and the Palestinians have today would not exist. It's a shame to see that Israel and Palestine have succumbed to and endless cycle of revenge.Well, since the Jews started the cycle of violence they are supposed to end it.

Well, since the Jews started the cycle of violence they are supposed to end it.

You have nothing to contribute to this thread. Please leave.

The thread title is what is the legacy of the Six Day War 30 years later and this thread is the legacy:

Israel hated by the West as some type of the worst colonial oppresors.

Pro-Israel advocates trying to counter back to change somebody's view only to learn that nobody's view can change in this conflict.

Then Israel is a battleground of words and guns while both sides try to win the propaganda war while terrorist attacks, retaliations, and in fighting all reign free.

Meanwhile people talk about "colonizers" (put in quotes because they're not colonizers oh and don't attack my entire post because of this one thing), "terrorists" (put in quotes for neutrality's sake), and failed peace deals.

Without the 6 day war there would be no debate or much of less of one. That is the true legacy of the Six Day War.

The thread title is what is the legacy of the Six Day War 30 years later and this thread is the legacy:

Israel hated by the West as some type of the worst colonial oppresors.

Pro-Israel advocates trying to counter back to change somebody's view only to learn that nobody's view can change in this conflict.

Then Israel is a battleground of words and guns while both sides try to win the propaganda war while terrorist attacks, retaliations, and in fighting all reign free.

Meanwhile people talk about "colonizers" (put in quotes because they're not colonizers oh and don't attack my entire post because of this one thing), "terrorists" (put in quotes for neutrality's sake), and failed peace deals.

Without the 6 day war there would be no debate or much of less of one. That is the true legacy of the Six Day War.So the occupation that was begun then is not as bad as the discussions about it? The plight of the Palestinian Arabs (who you manage not to mention) is not as important as Israel's reputation?

The legacy of the Six Day War? What Six Day War? This war was begun at least 90 years ago, the Six Day Battle was only a further step of escalation The legacy of the "Six Day War" is 30 years of keeping a population under military control and in some sub-human status, a true success of evil.

So the occupation that was begun then is not as bad as the discussions about it? The plight of the Palestinian Arabs (who you manage not to mention) is not as important as Israel's reputation?

The legacy of the Six Day War? What Six Day War? This war was begun at least 90 years ago, the Six Day Battle was only a further step of escalation The legacy of the "Six Day War" is 30 years of keeping a population under military control and in some sub-human status, a true success of evil.

No I never said any of that, none of it at all. Hell that's the greatest spin on words I've probably ever seen and I'm a debater and an American.

I said that the legacy of the Six Day War was and is the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the discussions about it in fancy language.

Also if there is no six day war then why the hell are you responding to a thread that is called the "Six Day War and it's legacy" If you dont' believe it happened then leave.

I stop reading an article when I find something that I know has to be made up.

I didn't get past Krauthammer.

The Six-Day War: Forty years on. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2582180.ece)

Good article.

The same reason the President of Iran can't travel to the Al Aqsa mosque.Poor analogy as foreign travel is required for that one and Israel has no reason to grant that madman the right to travel to Israel.





[

Entirely untrue, the Israeli side broke off to fight the general election.


[
The fact remains that Taba never should've occurred. Tell me why Arafat never negotiated at Camp David.

Israel had no reason to talk to him at Taba. To reward Arafat and the Palestinians with a state at Taba would be to reward them for their actions at Camp David.
[/quote]
He says -



What part of that don't you get?[/QUOTE]
It seems like you are the one not getting what he is saying.

He is saying that taking the land in 1967 is not alone justification for taking the land. That certainly means that there is justification for Israel to have some of the land, but the fact that they won it in war isn't the reason for the justification.

I didn't get past Krauthammer.

So basically you censor opinoins you don't agree with. You are a really mature individual.:rolleyes:

Well, since the Jews started the cycle of violence they are supposed to end it.You and AP are both worthless Nazis who can leave this thread.

What the fuck does it tell you when the loudest anti-Israel advocates on NSG are telling you to STFU?

Poor analogy as foreign travel is required for that one and Israel has no reason to grant that madman the right to travel to Israel.
.

So you're denying him the right to visit a holy place. And all hes done is come out with shite, as oppossed to refugee camp massacres, being the father of the "settler movement" and having led a few reprisal raids back in the 1950's.....(And I might add, the problem wasn't him visting, it was visiting in a public way as part of his electoral campaign)




The fact remains that Taba never should've occurred. Tell me why Arafat never negotiated at Camp David..

But it did occur.

Israel had no reason to talk to him at Taba. To reward Arafat and the Palestinians with a state at Taba would be to reward them for their actions at Camp David...

Oooo, so when he can be blamed its fine, but when the Israeli side walks away, its still him because of the last time. Bit of a pattern there.




He is saying that taking the land in 1967 is not alone justification for taking the land. That certainly means that there is justification for Israel to have some of the land, but the fact that they won it in war isn't the reason for the justification.


He says fuck all about Israel having justification for anything. He says the borders were unsatisfactory, need to be renegotiated and there is no justification for annexation by force. Which is prescisely what the Gross Israel brigade have been doing by hook or crook for that last 40 years.