Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertOn Sun, 28 Mar 2004 22:18:45 -0500, Sheldon Liberman
[..]
That's about 10% of the territories captured in 1967.
90% is not 100%.
242 resolution clearly states that all the territory must be returned.
Israel has been violating it since ever.
Prove that.
"Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the
establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and
acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace
within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
force;"
Child, please study some more. Notice it says "Withdrawal of Israeli
armed forces from territories", not "all territories." Plenty of facts
have been repeatedly posted that the authors of the resolution clearly
made that an intentional choice, documenting that they specifically
thought "all" was inappropriate and that negotiations should set final
borders.
The author(s) of the resolution and the text itself also made clear that
the withdrawal should be from -essentially- all the territories, that all
that was considered was minor and mutual border adjustment and
rationalization. This was the US/UK and universal interpretation at the
time, and was why e.g. Dayan argued that it should be rejected because it
would mean full withdrawal, and why Begin resigned from the cabinet when
Israeli acceptance was finally made public.
Yes, and Israel returned 80% when it returned the Sinai.
It is very silly to include land returned to Egypt when the remaining
issues are with Syria and "Palestine." This stupid game dates only to the
treaty with Egypt. No one before Begin had the chutzpah to make such an
absurd argument.
No, it is quite reasonable, which is why you have a problem with it.
It is a joke, that takes enormous chutzpah to say with a straight face -
the land was taken from different countries. It is comical to propose that
negotiations with one partner should satisfy the others.
Little one, show me where I said that. I wait your invention. What
you're trying to say is that Israel giving back 80% of the territories
has no impact on whether or not Israel is in compliance with UNSCR.
That is simply a lie. The others can still talk, but to deny the
proven fact that israel has given back land as part of negotiations
still exists. The fact that the Arab countries other than Egypt and
Jordan have done nothing towards UNSCR 242 is also obvious.
Finally, on this point, you've yet to prove that anyone other than
France and a few other countries agree with your wish about the
meaning ot the withdrawal. US quotes don't show that. NEither do Arab
quotes, which say the Armistice Line is not a border and that Israel
doesn't exist.
Post by dogbertIf Egypt had a
war with Libya, Sudan and Israel, and conquered territory from all three,
do you think that Israel would find a plan that returned 90% or 99% of the
conquered territory - but all of it back to Libya and Sudan, not Israel -
(perfectly plausible numbers considering the relative sizes of these
countries) a reasonable fulfillment of a UN resolution asking Egypt to
return land for peace?
Still missing the simplest point. Israel was not fighting Egypt,
Syria, and other countries. Israel is fighting the Arab League, the
organization formed specifically to declare a war of extinction
against Israel. If those member countries joined in the war, that's
their choices. They'd better be willing to negotiate the way Egypt
negotiated. So far neither Syria nor the Palestinians have chosen to
negotiate seriously.
Post by dogbertPost by David TThe discussion over UNSCR 242 must include discussion of the territory
that was occupied at the time. Israel withdrew from territory based on
negotiations. When it withdrew, it uprooted settlements and handed
over what is now a major Egyptian tourist city, which had been
significantly expanded by Israel. Any other argument is fallacious and
propogandistic.
Any other argument than what? You didn't make an argument, just some
observations, true enough, but of unclear relevance.
Ahh, the fact still exists that Israel has shown compliance with UNSCR
242, while you ignore those facts. Sorry puppy, your ignorance is no
excuse.
Post by dogbertPost by David TIsrael has shown it is in compliance with UNSCR 242.
Not in the opinion of any serious observer.
Really? To bad you've been unable to prove that, while I've given
clear evidence of compliance.
Post by dogbertSC 242 means- that
essentially all the land must be returned in negotiations,
I've quoted British and US sources, including the main authors. You've
quoted opinions of non-authors who'd like it to be something else.
Post by dogbertin return for
peace. It is crystal clear that recently the Arabs have been scrupulously
living up to their obligations by the various plans they have proposed
most especially by Abdullah's 2002 plan, which is as close to a photocopy
of 242 as is imaginable, while Israel has been mocking it with its
irrational, illegal and immoral proposals.
I've shown that Israel has negotiated in good faith with the only two
countries to end their states of war, you haven't shown any other Arab
country willing to negotiate in good faith.
I've pointed out the key component of UNSCR 242 that states agressor
nations must end their aggression and open normal relations with
Israel. You've completely ignored that, especially for the states at
war who have no territorial issues because they share no borders with
Israel.
Meanwhile, Abdullah's plan is not UNSCR 242, and is not as close as
you try to imply. Again, I attempt you to try to prove that statement.
However, my laugh of the day is the "living up to the obligations by
the various plans they have proposed." They haven't even done that,
but if they had, so what? You and other anti-semites whine about
Israel supposedly thumbing its collective nose at the UN, yet you only
talk about Arab proposals, while ignoring UN resolution 181 and lying
about UNSCR 242.
The only proposals the Arabs have lived up to are their repeated
promises to try to destroy the "Zionist entity."
Post by dogbertPost by David TThe Arabs, other
than Egypt and Jordan, have shown they have done nothing to attempt to
be in compliance.
This is just plain cuckoo. All the Arab states are in far better
compliance than Israel, and have been for a long time. After all, it is
MUCH EASIER for them to be in compliance. They didn't occupy any
territory, and have none to give up. SC 242 asks something of Israel, and
little of the Arabs. The Arabs have been willing to do the little for a
very long time.
You really need to go and actually read UNSCR 242. However, since
you're probably too incompetent to find it on the net, let me help
you:
http://domino.un.org/__852560d3006f9c53.nsf/0/59210ce6d04aef61852560c3005da209!OpenDocument
Notice the dual part of Article 1:
"1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the
establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which
should include the application of both the following principles:
"(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in
the recent conflict;
"(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect
for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence of every State in the area and their right to
live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from
threats or acts of force;"
Yet again, it doesn't say "almost all" as you keep fantasizing.
However, it does clearly state the Termination of all claims or states
of belligerency. Only a moron, anti-semite or both would claim the
non-Egypt/Jordania Arabs States are in compliance with that.
I vote for you in both categories.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertPost by David TIsrael
offered 92% of the remaining area and the Palestinians said no,
88% at best is more like it, such figures don't include the parts of
expanded Jerusalem retained.
Sorry, puppy, there you lie. While Israel said it offered 98%, the
Palestinian negotiators put the figure at 92%. I've posted that fact
before. I'm not surprised that you chose to ignore it.
I may not have seen it. If you are talking about the Camp David
negotiations, I believe my figure is correct and not really in much dispute
- the main discrepancies in the various figures come from Jerusalem, as I
said. Reports of them differ, and neither of us have even been clear about
which of the various negotiations we are talking about.
I was very clear: Camp David. Israel said 98% and the Palestinians
said it was "only" 92%.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertPost by David Treturning to suicide bombings. A little math will show you what Israel
would have kept was minor.
No, it was not. It is easy to concoct a plan that returns up 99% or
anywhere up to 100% and is still completely unacceptable, if one eliminates
the universal demand for contiguity and some degree of convexity. It looks
like Israel wants to have its borders be a Mandelbrot set. :-)
I want to see how you can define a 99% solution that denies
contiguity.
A trivial matter. Arbitrarily thin strips of land every meter or so,
crisscrossing the area. If one wanted, Israel could thus "give back"
99.999% of the territory, say it will shoot anyone who does not stay within
these generous 99.999% borders, and then commit genocide against the evil
infiltrators of Israeli land, who could not be satisfied with their 99.999%
Now try to show that Israel has done that. Your knowledge of
gerrymandering but not of Camp David show that you are still confused
about the differences between theory and reality.
Also, how easily you use the genocide charge against Israel while
consistently failing to acknowledge three things:
1) Arab population increase in Israel and the territories
2) Ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank and East Jerusalem in
1948
3) The Arabs you support demand another ethnic cleansing if Jews from
those same places.
Post by dogbertOf course this is ridiculous, but illustrates the way that percentages
don't tell the whole story; Israeli behavior - plans insisting on keeping
most of the illegal settlements - shows a real tendency towards this
ridiculous extreme.
You invent an extreme gerrymandering situation not close to what
Israel suggests, refuse to deal with facts, and then turn around and
call Israelis "extreme". How consistently sad.
Post by dogbertPost by David TMeanwhile, go and study a little history. Look at the
borders suggested by the UN in the 1947 Partition Agreement. The Jews
accepted a ridiculously bordered region that was much more screwed up
than anything you could claim Israel offered the Palestinians.
If the Jewish State had ridiculous borders, then so did the Palestinian
one. Your statement is simply not true - the Barak 2000 not-so-generous
offer was far crazier - "post-modern" was a word used for it, than the
relatively reasonable 47 plan
In what way? Try to arguing those borders. The fact that the two
countries would share borders does not mean the impact on both were
equivalent. That you would make such a statement continues to show
your lack of logical abilities.
Post by dogbertPost by David TMeanwhile, study what a Mandlebrot set is. The point of that theory is
not lack of continuity, but rather the fractal nature of both nature
and portions of mathematics. The analogy doesn't really hold.
Contiguity, not continuity. The analogy is a good one; perhaps you need
some study. Israel seems to want to have a fractal border rather than one
based on straight lines and simple curves and natural features like
everywhere else. :-)
Israelis want an infinite border. How interesting. No, wait. That's
wrong. What a poor analogy and a dumb concept.
Post by dogbert(OK, the natural features could be fractal, but you get the idea.)
I certainly do. The Palestinians want a much simpler border: none for
Israel because it won't exist. Between that and a confusing border,
I'll take the confusing one.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertThe only time when Israel offered a plan that arguably would have given
Palestine something like a state that looks like any other state in the
world was at Taba, where their offers were reciprocated, and where Israel
walked out.
No, it was Camp David, where 92%, by Palestinian standards, was
offered and Arafat started suicide bombing. Taba, in 1996, was early
in the process. Taba in 2001 was after the bombings were going on and
the two sides still put out a joint statement,
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/1/Israeli-Palestinian%20Joint%20Statement%20-%2027-Jan-2001,
hardly a "walk out."
You might want to look at the same site to find a statement of the
government of Israel saying it is leaving the negotiations, unilaterally.
Great, as an exercise: provide the link and provide a link to the date
that Arafat left. Nations, as with people, love to act like they
weren't walked out on. We'll compare those. Then I'll point out the
Clinton quote saying that the negotiations failed through Arafat's
intransigence. We'll have fun.
Post by dogbertPost by David TThe main bone of contention still separating
both sides was the imaginary concept of "right of return."
For Israel, a state based on a concept of a rather more "imaginary" Jewish
"right of return" , to belittle this is absurd.
So you're saying:
1) a sovereign nation does not have a right to set its own imigration
policy
2) That Ireland, Italy and other nations that give automatic
citizenship to descendents of citizens are doing something terrible
and imaginary.
3) That people who call for the destruction of a nation are the only
ones who get to decide the immigration policy of that nation.
Just brilliant, puppy. Brilliant.
Post by dogbertActually at Taba, Israel,
to its credit, apparently made a start toward admitting its responsibility
for the refugee problem.
More illiterate ignorance. I've also pointed out on these forums the
undisputed fact that Israel had accepted more than 40,000 refugees
back into Israel by 1971. Taba wasn't a beginning.
Meanwhile, I've yet to see you demand that Jews should be allowed to
stay in the West Bank, where Jews lived for thousands of years, until
ethnically cleansed in 1948. You've also ignored posts calling for
reparations for both Arab and Jewish refugees.
Post by dogbertPost by David TBoth sides
agreed to disagree.
Basically, about numbers, which weren't absurdly far apart The general
picture was clear- agreements were drawn up with blanks left in for the
numbers - Exercise of the "right of return" in a symbolic way only, that
would not substantially alter Israel's demographic balance. Arafat and
othes speaking for him have been saying this for some time now.
No, Arafat and others continue to call for full ROR and deny they'll
give it up. They continue to call for the elimination of Israel, as
one of his deputies in Fatah just did. The PLO still hasn't removed
the plank calling for israel's destruction from it's constitution.
Fatah has never even tried. Both are run by Arafat.
Post by dogbertPost by David TThen the Palestinians violated all the agreements by continuing the
violence, just as they've never tried to implement the Road Map.
They've
Post by David TPost by dogbertSo there have been suicide bombings. Israel "returned" to massive and more
lethal repression in the occupied territories.
And yet you refuse to notice your own lies.
First, clearly admit that
the Israeli "return" was a direct result of suicide bombings.
No.
Of course you won't. Of course, you can't dispute it, just repeat no.
The facts on the ground showed Israel had withdrawn from almost all of
the West Bank and there were no checkpoints. Facts show there was a
40,000 PA police force guarding the region, armed with weapons illegal
under the PA's agreements with Israel. The facts show that Israel only
came back in with force, and set up checkpoints after Arafat left Camp
David and ordered the restart of suicide bombings.
All you can say is "No". That is the most simple and eloquent
statement of your anti-semitism and method of dialogue there is:
Ignore facts and deny reality.
Post by dogbertPost by David TSecond,
the numbers clearly show that this phase of the Palestinian war
against Israel is much less lethal than the first intifada.
? For whom ?
For the Pallies. The suicide bombings have increased the numbers of
Israeli civilian deaths. Check the numbers. It's been better for both
even though the Palestinians are using worse tactics. Why? Because
Israel's learned how to defend itself better while endangering fewer
civilians, while the Palestinians still focus on killing civilians
from both populations.
In fact, numbers suggest that in the first intifada a 1,000
palestinian were killed by Palestinians between 1989 and 1992. Current
figures show much fewer this time. Also, in the current round of
violence, the vast majority of Palestinians killed by Israel are
combatants, which was not the case in the first intifada.
Since you're probably too young to remember, the first intifada had
more youths and large protests mixed with gunmen. That caused more
civilian casualties. They started the same way the second time, but
then quickly switched to suicide bombings in order to kill more Jewish
civilians. However, the Palestinians still used civilian areas as
shields in battle, along with using children both to test no-man's
lands and to do their own bombings.
Post by dogbertPost by David TFewer
people have been killed and of those killed a much higher percentage
have been combatants, not civilians.
Post by dogbertWhat else is new?
the Arabs again start killing Jews and your only complaint is that
Jews actually defend ourselves. Sadly, nothing is new.
No, major violence started up again. What is sad, and not new, is that
many can look at the situation and not see that what is really happening is
that Israelis again started killing Arabs after they had rejected the
umpteenth reasonable offer to "share the loaf" and the complaint is that
the evil Arabs have the temerity to defend themselves - albeit frequently
in terroristic and criminal manners.
That's just sad. So transparent a lie. There was no Sharon, no Wall,
no checkpoints and no overwhelming Israeli force before the suicide
bombings started. Lets remember:
- Arafat walks from Camp David
- Arafat later admits that he had the violence planned and only used
Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount as an excuse to restart violence
- Riots are started by Palestinians and the Palestinians claim Israel
defending from the riots is "provocation"
- A bunch of suicide bombings, including that of a Passover sedar
occur
- Israel moves with force back in to the territories.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertThe fact
remains that Israel could just unbend a little, a fraction of what the
other side has,
The other side has unbent how? Has Arafat done anything in the Road
Map? He's lost one PM because he refused to give up control of the
terrorist, I mean security, forces. The PA has done nothing to shut
down the terrorist organizations.
The GOI has done nothing to shut down its terrorist organization, the IDF
in the occupied territories.
Ahh, the old baseless accussation, that a country defending itself
against people calling for the country's destruction is somehow
terrorist. Since you've only made that claim for Israel, the reason
for the illiterate bias is noted.
Post by dogbertPost by David TThe PA has done nothing to end
incitement.
The GOI has not stopped inciting, both by words, and more seriously, by its
operations continually aimed at averting the specter of a truce.
Post by David TMeanwhile, the terrorists, including Arafat's Fatah,
continue to call for the destructgion of Israel. That's not unbending,
puppy.
Post by dogbertand just accept, e.g. the latest Abdullah plan, which
doesn't even call for the right of return even as an initial bargaining
position.
The latest Abdullah plan? You mean the Saudi Arabian one rejected by
both Palestinians and Israel?
I am talking about the 2002 Arab League plan proposed by Crown Prince
Abdullah, and unanimously supported by all the members of the Arab League,
including Palestine. If you know of a later initiative rejected by the
Palestinians and Israel, I'd like to know of it.
Yeah, the one referred to here:
http://www.jerusalemites.org/facts_documents/peace/19.htm
While international press covered PA nods to the plans, local press
covered Hamas and other organizations' rejections because of what's
mentioned in the article: the subtext of possibly dropping the right
of return. It also mentions: "The plan also depends on an Arab
consensus being built - something that has historically been extremely
difficult to do. Iraq, Iran and Syria might be expected to be the
main dissenters, but it is possible that these states might see the
plan as a serious opportunity for a comprehensive and just regional
agreement." I could not find any unamimous Arab statements that would
support the "might" as a fact you'd like to claim. Please, enlighten
me...
Meanwhile, again you support the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the
West Bank but have the temerity to mention Israel's want to genocide.
Post by dogbertPost by David TThe one that's a PR ploy to make up with
the US? The one that ignores the direct responsibility that Saudi
Arabia and the rest of the Arab world has to follow UNSCR 242?
Saudi Arabia has a direct responsibility? Does it border on Israel now,
is their land under Israeli occupation?
Puppy, refer to the text of 242, the one I copied above. While you
keep claiming that there's an "all" in 1a, you keep ignoring the "all"
that is clearly in 1b. Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel. It is
mentioned in UNSCR 242. Take this to your High School teacher,
hopefully he can explain it to you.
Post by dogbertPost by David TThat
one? yeah, right.
I'll tell you what. Get the Arabs to follow UNSCR 242 and then we'll
talk.
Arab respect for SC 242 is clearly greater than Israeli or nowadays,
American respect. The Abdullah plan basically *IS* SC 242.
You keep saying that, yet you can't actually prove it. Repeating
emotive mantras and ignoring reality: The true sign of a fanatic.
Post by dogbert(Here it is: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm )
Yes, it has:
- Added "all" to the territories. A major change in UNSCR 242
- Added "Palestinian" to the refugee statement in 242, where the
original refers to all refugees, jewish and Arab
- A claim that it was palestinian territories occupied in 1967, though
there is no basis in international law for that statement.
- The two parts of Article 1 in 242 were independant. The Saudi
proposal says that Israel must do everything before the Arabs do
anything.
So, no, the Arab proposal is significatnly different than 242, and
intentionally so.
Post by dogbertIf Israel rejects it, it means it rejects SC 242, as it clearly has since
the early 70's, in reality, by concocting unsupported and irrational
post-facto "interfpretations" of it, that you have been deceived by
dishonest propagandists to believe were the original intention of its
drafters.
Sorry, puppy, more illiterate lies. Address the points I made, then
we'll see if you have more than 7 firing synapses.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertThe Israeli government could end the terrorism, end the strife, end the
insecurity, end the deaths on both sides, make Israel and Palestine normal
countries with normal and peaceful and productive relations with all their
neighbors. It of course knows it could do this, in a moment. It just
doesn't want to.
What a wonderfully illiterate fantasy world you have going. The only
way Israel could do that is to cease to exist. To deny that the PA was
in control, not Israel, of most of the territories in 2000, when the
bombings started, is to truly show your anti-semitism.
If that's what you want to call knowledge of the facts and the law, that's
your business.
Of course. Here's
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2001/countryratings/zzisraeliadmin.htm.
It does mention that in 2000, Israel had control of 64%, but was out
of the cities. It then mentions that the Wye Accords that Israel would
pull back from 13.1% of the land, which was directly controlled, and
14% of the land, which was under joint authority. Then, following the
signing, Israel withdrew from an additional 7%.
Now, puppy, lets do some math. 64-13-14-7=30%. As I mentioned, the PA
was in control of most of the land. Puppy, try to join us here in
reality.
Post by dogbertPost by David TIt is up to the
Palestinians to control and end their terror. Israel's only
responsibility is to defend its people while trying to minimize the
damage to both peoples caused by the Palestinian terrorists.
What about the Israeli terrorists? Israel could have peace in ten minutes
if it just accepted the other sides offers
Which side offers? Be specific? The Hamas side offer to continue to
fight until Israel is destroyed? The same offer from AAMB, IJ, Fatah
and elsewhere in the Palestinian political infrastructure? From the
PA, which has not only paid for suicide bombings, but whos policemen
have become bombers? From losers of wars declared by Arabs who now
want to unilaterally define borders which they clearly stated were
only Armistice Lines?
Post by dogbert- basically just SC 242 - BUT IT
DOESN'T WANT TO - the mad war must go on, because of madmen like Sharon, a
far bloodier, far more irrational, far more "kill for the sake of killing"
terrorist than anyone on the Palestinian side;
Right. Again ignoring facts and timelines.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertTo quote Israel Gallili, it just wants to get a little more.
Do you even know who he was?
Maybe the actor in "Raid on Entebbe",
http://www.filmkeuze.nl/cgi-bin/loader?/cgi-bin/pm/film-6a4127.html
However, maybe you meant Israel Galili, MK (That's Member of Knesset).
Now, if you're referring to the second one, I suggest you provide a
reliable source for the quote you wish to claim he made, with full
context. Then you can show how whatever opinion he had actually meant
what you'd like it to mean and, more importantly, that he knew what he
was talking about .Until then, puppy, go learn how to attempt to
document a case. Unsubstantiated claims mean nothing.
Post by dogbertPost by David TThe better quote is a paraphrase from a Mel Brooks movie. The
Palestinians just want peace. A little piece of the Galilee, a little
piece of the Negev. A little piece of Jerusalem, a little piece of
Gush Dan...
Perhaps, but they are not acting on these desires. Israel is.
You are projecting Israeli crimes onto the victims of these crimes.
No, you're imagining Israel's crimes while ignoring what the Arabs
have done, continue to do, and promise to keep doing in to the future.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertPost by David TMeanwhile, independant military experts said the 1967 border was not
defensible,
Well, then "independent military experts" are replete with excrement. If
Albert Einstein came back from the dead and said 1 divided by 0 is 43, he
would still be wrong. Israel's armies showed these borders were quite
defensible in the real world.
Interesting how you, with no acknowledgement of the borders of Israel,
the analysis of the experts from 1949, or of warfare, can make such a
bold pronouncement and think that you're opinion holds any more weight
than your bodies' own volume of excrement.
It does because such statements are insane the way it is often taken by
propagandists, and their dupes like yourself. Israel won the war, in fact
every war it was ever in. Therefore its borders were not indefensible.
How many lives were lost? What percentage of the population did that
entail? Puppy, the fact that Israel won does not obviate threekey
things:
1) That defensible means more than "not being destroyed", it means a
reasonable defensive position.
2) That military analysts show that Israel won mainly because of Arab
military ineptitude. The fact that the Arabs screwed up doesn't mean
that the borders were fine.
3) In 1973, when the Arabs came close to winning, the border wasn't
the pre-1967 border, it WAS THE 1967 BORDER.
Idiot, you've just supported the importance of Israel retaining all of
the West Bank, and you probably don't even realize it.
Post by dogbertPeriod. To say they were, the way it is often said, is an example of the
Big Lie technique.
Look in a mirror. You're so sad it's pitiable. The few times you try
to argue, you contradict your own lies.
Post by dogbertPost by David TAny fact is just not useable if it actually proves Israel's points.
How sad for you. Scott Adams would be so sad you're using his dog to
represent such illiterate hate.
Please explain to me where I have displayed any illiteracy, or any hate.
I have, multiple times. However, you're too illiterate and hate filled
to admit what's been happening here. Again, take this to an educated
adult who doesn't have a strong opinion towards either side, and let
her help you.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertWhat these experts actually usually meant was the same as the authors of
SC 242: that these simply were not sensible or natural borders - they were
not a good fence. If they had been better, more natural borders, it would
have been easier to patrol them to prevent border crossing and they would
have provided each side with a measure of defense from attack. These
simple observations are often twisted to deceive the unwary to mean that
Israel has a right to change to defensible borders which uncannily always
amount to it taking more territory- of course borders could be changed to
be made more defensible by retreating, too.
That's a wonderfully twisted bit of fantasy. The experts said the
borders are indefensible. Because of that, the UN wrote UNSCR 242
expressly to say that borders would be set by negotiations and not by
unilateral withdrawal of Israel from all territories. Yet you can
ignore reality and claim that the statements that the border's
indefensible and that Israel has a right to negotiate defensible
borders means that Israel doesn't have the right.
I do not make this claim. I tried to explain to me what serious and
honest statements of "indefensiblity" meant, and to distinguish them from
silly propaganda, like Abba Eban's "Auschwitz borders" shtick.
You "tried to explain to me"? Yup, you certainly did. You and other
fools such as you are the only ones who'll believe your foolishness.
Post by dogbertPost by David THow Newspeak of you.
Also, where in the resolution is the idea that only Israel has the right ot
defensible borders?
The meaning of the resolution is that Israel, AND THE ARABS should
negotiate defensible borders, which, however, should be roughly the Green
Line.
I know you're slow, but try to keep up: It doesn't. It just says that
Israel must withdraw from territories. The authors said that "all"
wasn't used because Israel needed defenisble borders. Nothing in the
resolution mentioned either withdrawal from all territories or
defensible borders.
However, if you actually pay attention to reality, you'd know that the
issue of borders has to do with making Israel secure and the
Palestinians not too fragmented. Most peace agreements call for a
demilitarized Palestine, so the question of "defensible" isnt' really
an issue. The contiguity of the West Bank Palestinian population is.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertPost by David Twhich is why it was expected Israel would keep territory,
mainly in the two western humps that isolate Jerusalem.
This is simply not true. Perhaps some in Israel thought it could
illegitimately "get a little more," but that was not the understanding of
what 242 meant at the time.
It was exactly the meaning. That negotiations would set the final
borders. The authors are on record as saying exactly that. Sorry, but
if you continue to lie, you shouldn't be upset that your lying is
pointed out.
Okay, I've been waiting for you to say that, grasshopper. Show me a
statement of the authors of SC 242 that says this, that Israel could get a
little more, that Israel was expected to keep significant territory.
Puppy, the issue isn't Isarel getting "significant" territory. The
issue is the lie about the border supposedly being essentially the
Armistice line. Though I've posted quotes on other threads, which I
copied from another poster who'd put up the same quotes, and you've
ignored them, we'll do it one more time:
A. United Kingdom
Lord Caradon, Chief UN Delegate: "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
1948, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a
permanent boundary... "
Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969: "As
I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United
Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from
territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told
the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read
concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word
'territories' is deliberate."
Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January
1970: "I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or
improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of
the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult
and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security
Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we
submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The
proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were
occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel
will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post,
23.1.70)
B. United States of America
Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the
course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution
242: "To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ...
would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries
without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or
recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949
nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description...
such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point
is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as
withdrawal is... " (S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67)
President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 1968: "We are not the ones to
say where other nations should draw lines between them that will
assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return
to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be
secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be
agreed to by the neighbours involved."
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."
Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale
University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for
Political Affairs: a) "... 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." (American
Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)
b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the
Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized
boundaries' between Israel and its neighbours 'free from threats or
acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established
in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed
forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive
agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in
a condition of peace." (American Journal of International Law, Volume
64, September 1970, p. 68)
Secretary of State Christopher's letter to Netanyahu:
"Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders, which should be
directly negotiated and agreed with its neighbors."
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."
This reading of Resolution 242 has always been the keystone of
American policy. In launching a major peace initiative on September 1,
1982, President Reagan said, "I have personally followed and supported
Israel's heroic struggle for survival since the founding of the state
of Israel thirty-four years ago: in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was
barely ten 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."
C) From http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp500.htm
While the U.S. was formulating diplomatic language concerning the
required depth of any future Israeli withdrawal, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle G. Wheeler, prepared a memorandum
for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that summarized the U.S.
military assessment about Israel's need for defensible borders: "From
a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention
of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily
defensible borders" (emphasis added). The Pentagon document, dated
June 29, 1967, spoke about retaining "control of commanding terrain"
and the need to create "in-depth defense." The Pentagon thus
envisioned Israel fixing a new defense line on the top of the West
Bank mountain ridge rather than in the Jordan Valley.
Post by dogbertPlease point out a lie then, David. You've hardly even specifically called
anything a lie.
Puppy, first accept the truth, then the lie will be obvious. I've
constantly pointed out the lie of your claim. You've not been able to
refute it with facts.
Post by dogbertPost by David TAs for "getting a little more", explain how giving up territory is
"getting a little more."
"A little more" than the pre-67 borders. Or is it your contention that SC
242 means Israel gets to keep all the occupied territories?
Another attempt to invent a fantasy world. I've never said such, as
any reading of the ngs would show. Back to school for you.
Post by dogbertPost by David TAlso, the Arabs have already accepted the
concept of them losing means Israel gets the land it won.
No, they have not.
Again, are you an idiot or a liar? Please go and study UN Resolution
181. See what was the suggested border of Israel. Notice it's not the
Armistice Line. Notice also that the few Arabs who talked about
possible peace with Israel before 1967, demanded a return to the UN's
suggested lines, not the Armistice Line. Now notice how they've
accepted the Armistice Line.
Then there are Egypt and Jordan. They could have created a second
Palestinian State anytime they wanted too between 1948 and 1967. They
chose not to. When they made peace with Israel they both gave the land
to Israel. The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty doesn't mention a second
Pallie state, but sets the border between the two countries as the
Jordan River. Do you know where that is?
Finally, Syria.they came close to peace a few years ago and were
willing to take back less than all of the Golan Heights. They balked
at not having access to the Kinneret, but they set a precedent for
saying they didn't want all the land back.
They've accepted Israel's acquisition of land through defensive war.
The only question is "how much land." Please, you're idiocy is
actually painful
Post by dogbertPost by David TThat's why
they don't demand withdrawal to the UN's suggested borders, but to the
line the Arabs claim is only an Armistice Line, not a border.
Because they lost another war.
Yes. The Arabs lost an agressive war. Territory gets lost that way.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertIt is preposterous that Jordan would have
accepted 242 on such a basis.
It's preposterous of you to keep posting such nonsense. It's patently
false. Notice that while they didn't accept it initially,
They and Egypt did so earlier than Israel - not surprising, as the idea was
for them to get back (the) territory, in return for peace. What is
nonsensical about it? It is preposterous that Jordan would have accepted
242 earlier than Israel, as was the case, if it meant that Israel would
gain recognized sovereign terrirtory by 242 and Jordan lose it.
No, puppy, it's preposterous that you still don't comprehend what I've
said. Again, attempt to refer to the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty.
Post by dogbertPost by David Tthat's
beside the point, it was the meaning of the resolution. Second, as
I've posted the Israel-Jordan peace treaty before, you should have
actually read it. When Jordan made peace with Israel, it defined the
border between the two countries as the Jordan River. There is no
mention of a second Palestinian majority nation or anything Israel
would have to do to create it. Jordan officially acknowledges Israel
as extending to the Jordan, regardless of what their government loudly
proclaim in order to stay friendly with other Arabs.
Jordan did accept it. Deal with reality -- for a change.
David, I think that your attempt to read such treaties is commendable.
You should try to understand what you read too.
Interesting, I point out the facts in the treaty, you point out
nothing. How enlightening. Perhaps you can show where they didn't set
the border as the Jordan River?
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertThe idea was that the old lines cut villages
in two, even cut peoples property in two - which of course caused a lot of
the infiltration in the early years, and were just bad borders in general,
not respecting the lay of the land at all - the idea was that if there was
a line of hills or a stream near the border, it should be shifted to make
this natural border the border.
And you can document that with quotes from the authors of the
resolution? Of course you can't, that's just your fantasy.
Umm, yes. Umm, I have, as have others.
No, you haven't. I've posted the authors, you haven't. Try again.
Post by dogbertI'm waiting for you to give me a quote from any of the authors of the
resolution that indicate that they though it OK for Israel to keep
significant amounts of territory.
Post by David TPost by dogbertPost by David TNot
surprisingly, that primarily what Israel wants to keep.
Post by dogbertThe idea that it could mean significant Israeli retention of territory is
the later, strained, unsupported and partisan interpretation.
Yes, and the claim that Israel wants to do so is strained, unsupported
and partisan.
By significant, I mean something other than mutual and minor border
adjustments. Thus what you are incorrectly saying "was expected" is a
significant retention. My claim is not strained, unsupported or partisan,
just a matter of fact. It is a simple matter of fact, disputed by no one,
Wrong again, oh puppy. It's disputed by not only people, but by facts.
David, what you are saying is crazy. What you are proposing Israel keep is
hardly a minor and mutual adjustment.
The definition of minor is in the eye of the beholder. As for
"mutual", please grow up. Until both sides agree, nothing is mutual,
that's definitional. It's no more or less mutual than the 1967 borders
you attempt to force upon Israel.
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertthat Israel wants to retain significant amounts of territory. (Of course
the people of Israel don't really, but all of its governments have.)
What would you know about what the people of Israel want? Polls here
show clearly that people have no interest in Gaza but have a strong
interest in keeping portions of the West Bank.
No, polls of Israelis show that if the question is asked - would you be
willing to give up all the WB and G if it would not compromise Israeli
security about 60% say yes.
1) Point me to the poll
2) Show me what percentage of that 60% believe that giving up all the
WB and G would actually not compromise security. That's the crux of
the matter. Hell, if I thought it wouldn't, and the Palestinians
created a democracy that allowed Jews to live there, as required by
181, I'd agree too. However, the Israelis don't trust the
Palestinians, with good reason, and don't think it would bring
security.
Post by dogbertFrequently polls in Israel which say that
they are polls of Israelis, turn out to be polls only of Israeli Jews on
closer inspection too. This poll question is a crazy one too - it is like
asking someone with a 100 pound tumor if they would be willing to give it
up if they could get rid of it in a way so that their health would not be
compromised.
So you're arguing against your own poll? Also, as to "giving up"
settlements in the WB, are you saying the opinions of non-Jews is
either a) the same as jews, b) relevant to the discussion of
protecting Jews, or c) should affect how Jews look at protecting Jews?
Post by dogbertPost by David TPost by dogbertWhat the original interpretation of SC 242 was is a matter of fact.
Exactly, so why do you ignore it?
You are the one who rejects the well supported facts. I am waiting for you
to post something that supports it. I on the other hand have posted in the
past ample documentation of the correct interpretation.
Really? That's why the authors disagree with you? That's why you claim
the US agrees with you but I have quotes showing otherwise? Sorry,
whine all you want, but you're still in fantasy land.
Post by dogbertPost by David T1) The 1947 Partition Agreement just suggested borders, but didn't
define them.
Huh???
Study, you might actually understand. I'm out of patience with your
lack of knowledge.
Post by dogbertPost by David T2) The Arabs denied the existence of Israel was legitimate and
attacked to destroy
3) The 1948-9 line was recognized by the Arabs as an Armistice Line,
and they expressly stated it did not constitute a border
4) UNSCR 242 specifically omitted "all" and the authors explained why
"All" omitted in English only, not in other equally authoritative versions,
and in light of other sections, e.g. the preamble, it was not necessary to
prove the correctness of what I call the "correct interpretation" above.
Again, the authors wrote in English and the SC turned down an
amendment that tried to add "all". As for the French addition, it can
be looked at in one of two ways. First, as anti-semitism. Second, as
an idiomatic expression that doesn't literally mean "all". Here's
another researched opinion for you:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace%20process/guide%20to%20the%20peace%20process/on%20multi-lingual%20interpretation%20-un%20security%20counc
However, either way: the authors wrote in English and the SC
specifically turned down an amendment to add "all". Please stop your
ignorant blather.
Post by dogbertPost by David TNow the losers and their supporter demand something never demanded in
modern times of victors defending themselves -
Why the endless victim mentality?
What victim mentality? You keep excusing Arab violence because they're
"just victims" of Jews and Israel. I keep pointing out that we won't
be made victims again and will defend ourselves. Once again your
NewSpeak has things backwards.
Post by dogbertIsrael was the victor, sure. But where in international law, where in SC
242 was it determined that Israel was acting in self-defense? that the
Arabs were aggressors?
Again, read the posts (damn, typing that does get tiring). Attempting
to educate yourself would again point out:
- The Egyptian blocking of the Suez and the Straits to ISraeli traffic
- The Egyptian demand that the UN move from Sinai so Egyptian troops
could move towards Israel's borders
- Public statements by the leaders of Syria and Egypt that they were
about to finally destroy Israel
- Continued terror attacks on Israelis supported by the Arab countries
All of which would constitute acts of war, making Israel's actions
self-defense, if it wasn't for one overriding fact: The Arabs declared
war in 1948 and were still in that declared state of war against
Israel in 1967. Since they had declared war on Israel, ANYTHING they
did that looked dangerous to Israel meant a response from Israel was
justified.
Post by dogbertPost by David T- that they give up all
territories won in the conflict. The losers and their apologists do so
by ignoring their own statements to the contrary and suddenly calling
the Armistice Line a border. Your hypocrisy is very clear.
Post by dogbertIt is
of course a "case study in diplomatic ambiguity" but on the general
principles, it and its universal understanding in 1967 is clear enough -
essentially, practically all the land , for peace.
No, Israel defined "land for peace" in its deal with Egypt. 242 has
nothing to do with it.
An almost incomprehensible statement, Even on this incorrect version, how
can you say this? - it implies Camp David had nothing to do with 242.
Good guess. You're learning.
Post by dogbertPost by David TThe resolution isn't "one, then the other."
True. When did I suggest it was?
1) Your constant demands Israel withdraw fully before the Arabs make
peace with Israel
2) Your claim that the Saudi initiative, which demands the same thing,
is equivalent to 242 and a good thing.
Do you not even read what YOU write?
Post by dogbertThe resolution specifies an exchange,
which could hardly be expected to be other than simultaneous. Arab
interpretations which implied something else, were obviously self-serving
and wrong. However they were (a) still closer to the original, universal
and correct interpretation of SC 242 than Israels later inventions and (b)
abandoned a long time ago.
Post by David TIt's that both sides should negotiate final borders and that the Arab
countries should end ALL aggression against Israel and normalize
relationships.
And Israel should end all aggression against the Arab states and the people
under its control.
What aggression? They declared war. They attack. Israel defends. Very
clear cut. If you were alive in early 1945, you probably would have
demanded that the Allies surrender and stop being aggressively mean to
the poor innocent victim's of the Axis.
Post by dogbertPost by David TNow it's the Arab countries trying to claim that the
Israeli/Palestinian issue takes complete precedence over the Arab
responsibilities to the UN and Israel, while ignoring the fact that
the Arab intransigence is the cause of the refugees and the reason the
refugee problem hasn't been solved in 56 years.
It ignores this because the facts clearly show that the party which has
been more intransigent, has more ignored its legal obligations - and has
thus acted more dishonestly - has been Israel.
Arab intransigence caused the Jewish community to ethnically cleanse
Palestine and has kept Israel from letting them and their descendants
return to their homes? Do tell.
I have, you've ignored it. Again, flaming, bloody, idiot:
1) Go to www.dictionary.com and actually READ the definition of ethnic
cleansing
2) Then notice Jordan ethnically cleansed all Jews from the West Bank
and East Jerusalem in 1948
3) Then notice the population of Arabs in both Israel and the
territories has jumped phenomenally.
One side has ethnically cleanses, and it's not Israel. Worse, you're
demanding the Arabs do it again and that you think it's good and
proper that they do.
Puppy, I'm tired and you're an ignorant fool. When you post a new
thread saying that you've accepted the documented history, we'll talk
some more.