Illegal Israeli Settlements Rapidly Growing.

[Mycroft]

Mycroft has once again shown his ability in this thread...

You know, I'm starting to wonder if you don't personalize these fights as a deliberate tactic. You know you can’t win your argument on its merits because we’ve already had this argument in the past and you know full well the facts don’t support you. So what do you do? Make your assertion anyway, then blow a lot of smoke about how the big bad bullies won’t play nice with you so of course you can’t be expected to come up with that (non-existent) fact that redeems your already debunked claim.

Let’s recap:

Your claim is:

It is wrong from it's initial claim on the meaning of the UN resolution. The resolution [UNSCR 242 –ed] clearly states that land claimed by war cannot be held, it makes no qualifications.

Paraphrase of the same rebuttal from years ago:

The authors of UNSCR 242, Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon, and Arthur Goldberg, each disagree with you and each say Israel was never intended to withdraw to pre 1967 borders but instead to negotiate new borders with its Arab neighbors. The language of UNSCR 242 was very specifically chosen to require withdrawal, but not total withdrawal.

Check and mate. You have no rebuttal to that, and that’s why, I believe, you want to make this about personalities instead of facts.

 

[The Fool]

You know, I'm starting to wonder if you don't personalize these fights as a deliberate tactic. You know you can’t win your argument on its merits because we’ve already had this argument in the past and you know full well the facts don’t support you. So what do you do? Make your assertion anyway, then blow a lot of smoke about how the big bad bullies won’t play nice with you so of course you can’t be expected to come up with that (non-existent) fact that redeems your already debunked claim.

Let’s recap:

Your claim is:



Paraphrase of the same rebuttal from years ago:

The authors of UNSCR 242, Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon, and Arthur Goldberg, each disagree with you and each say Israel was never intended to withdraw to pre 1967 borders but instead to negotiate new borders with its Arab neighbors. The language of UNSCR 242 was very specifically chosen to require withdrawal, but not total withdrawal.

Check and mate. You have no rebuttal to that, and that’s why, I believe, you want to make this about personalities instead of facts.

So you are critical of someone personalising an agument in a long winded post personalising the argument. Once again, if you believe you can read minds and decide peoples motivations then please apply for the million.

Why not try responding to what A-U-P asserts rather than your worked over version? He is trying to point out to you the obvious intention of 242 which was about the fact that retaining territory conquered in war is not acceptable. Why bring up the specific 67 borders and try to make the argument something about them alone? It is simply semantic fog and mirrors which seems to be all you have to use in your endless Israeli apologia.

You bring up the authors of 242.....well then. Who said this?

"Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability 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."

I'll give you a hint....it was the chief author of the resolution....the same guy you use for your semantic based apologia.

"dog owners must prevent thier dogs crapping in the street"....let me guess, its ok because the dog on the end of your lead is not your dog? I guess that rule doesn't apply then eh? Lets not worry about dog crap in the streets and concentrate on the important issue of dog ownership.

242 was about preventing conquerors from keeping the land, you are not interested in that overwhelming fact and are much more interested in ways to rationalise whatever Israel decided to do...which appears to pretty much sum up what you believe is fair.

 

[Mycroft]

So you are critical of someone personalising an agument in a long winded post personalising the argument. Once again, if you believe you can read minds and decide peoples motivations then please apply for the million.

Why not try responding to what A-U-P asserts rather than your worked over version?

In fact, I responded directly to what he asserts. I even quoted it. It is he that refused to respond to anything, preferring instead to shout insults and to complain about being victimized.

He is trying to point out to you the obvious intention of 242 which was about the fact that retaining territory conquered in war is not acceptable.

You claim that’s “the” obvious intention as though there were no other “intentions.”

The intentions were to create a lasting peace with the participation of *all* sides. It doesn’t just place an obligation on the Israelis and everyone else be damned, it places obligations on all parties in that conflict. What does it require? From the resolution:

” 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;”

Meaning that in addition to Israel withdrawing from territories occupied, it also requires the Arab states to recognize Israel, it’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and its right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats and acts of force.

So how was UNSCR 242 supposed to do all that? From the resolution:

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Wow, it was supposed to designate a Spedial Representative to talk to all the different parties until they could agree on how to implement the previous portions.

That's what UNSCR 242 is about; working through differences through negotiations. It's not a blanket demand placed on one side or the other, it's a set of goals to be worked towards by everyone.

So far every state that has lived up to that obligation has had its territory returned from Israel, as required.

Why bring up the specific 67 borders and try to make the argument something about them alone? It is simply semantic fog and mirrors which seems to be all you have to use in your endless Israeli apologia.

Your obfuscation doesn’t make the statements I quoted from the authors of UNSCR 242 go away.

You bring up the authors of 242.....well then. Who said this?

"Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability 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."

I'll give you a hint....it was the chief author of the resolution....the same guy you use for your semantic based apologia.

I’m going to speculate here that the reason you’re not linking to your source is that any source that goes that deeply into Lord Caradon’s words will also contain information you don’t want in this argument. Such as Lord Caradon saying;

” 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. [9].”

From Wikipedia, the only source I could find your quote at. I don’t mind citing it. Overall it supports my view much more than yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#_note-9

242 was about preventing conquerors from keeping the land...

And Israel did not. Israel has negotiated peace (and returned territory) with everyone willing to negotiate peace. The holdouts still refuse to even recognize Israel.

...you are not interested in that overwhelming fact and are much more interested in ways to rationalise whatever Israel decided to do...which appears to pretty much sum up what you believe is fair.

I will remind you of your own words earlier in this very post. "...if you believe you can read minds and decide peoples motivations then please apply for the million."

You have just proven yourself a hypocrite. Again.

 

[jmontecillo01]

MyCroft, let me ask you a question. You claim that building the settlements is necessary for Israel's survival.

So, why do they put civilians on those lands which will expose them to danger. If they are building military outposts then I might accept what you are saying. Still they have right to occupy those lands.

We all know that Israel is more than capable of defending itself, so what is the point of that claim.

 

[jmontecillo01]

Corrections to my last posting

"Still they have no right to occupy those lands."

In addition, you cannot just take evrything that is fed to you as the gospel truth. That goes true for Isralie and Palestinians. You must always ask "Why, why, why". In that manner, you can see beyond the words that are fed to you.

 

[a_unique_person]

Having started this thread with an OP declaring that "illegal Israeli settlements are rapidly growing" it is obvious to me that a_u_p has an issue with Israeli settlements.

He even says, to affirm that view:
In my opinion, Israel is wrong on several points in this issue.

No kidding! Hey, in everyone's opinion here, and I mean everyone's, Israel is wrong on several points (we all just differ on which points)

Now, I've asked for some kind soul to summarize or concisely review here the article linked in Post #55 and a_u_p offered:
"the 'debunking' claimed the resolution stated something it did not."

and I'm waiting to see what that means...
(talking about the 'inadmissibility' of conquering land in war is not a useful starting point. That is pretty much the same as saying it's 'inadmissible' to claim the moon is made of rocks, and it is really green cheese.)

Where, in the article, a_u_p, does the 'debunking' article (of 23 pages length) misquote the UNSCR 242 ?

It offers a different interpretation.

Here are Carandons own words

Friday July 05, 2002 at 12:39 pm
"It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of 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.", Lord Hugh Caradon, (U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity. Washington, D.C., Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1981). "There has been much bickering over whether that resolution (242) should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war.",

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders1.php

It is quite clear, the only negotiation was over a few anomalies that could be straightened out a bit.

 

[Mycroft]

It offers a different interpretation.

Here are Carandons own words

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders1.php

It is quite clear, the only negotiation was over a few anomalies that could be straightened out a bit.

It's also quite clear a unilateral withdrawal was not what he had in mind, but a negotiated withdrawal that involves an end to violence and a recognition of Israel and its right to live in peace. If you're going to start paying attention to this evidence all of a sudden, you have to recognize the responsibilities it places on the Arab side of the equation.

 

[a_unique_person]

a_u_p, I've just read the thread cited, and it certainly illuminates you in a very bad light. You made a bold claim which sounded very anti-semetic and failed to provide any evidence of it. Despite being prompted repeatedly.

I provided a link, which does not work now after the database upgrade, to a story on Australian national TV, the ABC, relating how the neo-cons were, (not any more,a apparently), in the actions of the Bush administration after 9/11, when Bush was desperate for a plan of action. They provided him with one.

I also added, but no-one bothered to read,

This does no in way constitute a global Jewish conspiracy, but they are an important part of a world power that is running off the rails.

Why didn't they bother with that qualification? Because it doesn't suit their need to beat up on someone. I don't think Jews rule the world, want to run the world, or ever ran the world. The story was just about the neo-cons, are small but (formerly) influential group of like minded Jews who set about trying to create a fantasy in the Middle East. That fantasy is now in tatters, Wolfowitz has been shunted sideways to the World Bank.

Read the PNAC home page.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Project for the New American Century[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

JONATHAN HOLMES: Let me ask you though, any suggestion of dual loyalty, I mean that's almost a kind of taboo phrase isn't it in the United States media and any suggestion particularly that the Jewish ethnicity of many of these people as well as their political sympathy with Likud you know has anything to do with or that it's legitimate to kind of question the appropriateness of their passionate attachment to Likud at the same time as they're US government officials. This is all a very taboo area isn't it?
JIM LOBE: Yeah. I mean I think it's safe to say that this is something that people talk about at their peril and they publish at their peril, it's a very sensitive subject. Just in the past week for example, a very prominent neo-conservative writer at the New Republic published a column in the Washington Post talking about a toxic debate and suggesting that people both here and in Europe were suggesting that we were going to war with Iraq because of the quote "Jewish connection" in a sense. He didn't exactly use word anti-Semitism but he argued that to even suggest dual loyalty in that sense was was toxic, was extremely damaging. I mean it's a very sensitive subject, it's discussed much more frankly in the Israeli press than it is in the US press or I think a lot of issues around Israel are handled very delicately in the United States, particularly in Washington, because it is a delicate matter.
JONATHAN HOLMES: But that doesn't mean presumably that it isn't a legitimate topic in a sense?
JIM LOBE: I think the main concern is that people are very concerned about being labelled an anti-Semite which is what happened to Pat Buchanan for example and frankly I think that Pat Buchanan is a kind of anti-Semite and incarnation of a lot of old isolationist US values of which one was anti-Semitism, so I think people are very intimidated by that and neo-conservatives have played that card quite frequently and out of conviction, I'm not entirely certain it's cynical on their part, but they have never hesitated to raise the issue of anti-Semitism and last spring as you'll recall when things were getting very hot between suicide bombing by Palestinians and Israeli retaliation, in Israel and the occupied territories, there was a huge cry, particularly by neo-conservative columnists and commentators here about European anti-Semitism, they were not reluctant to raise that as an issue. I think what's important too however is that this is a essentially a political issue, these people by and large support Likud, it's not the religious issue that is motivating them, they believe that Likud's conception of Israel is a good conception and is worth fighting for and those who oppose them do not agree with Likud and the vast majority of the American Jewish community according to polls that have been taken, show that American Jews by and large do not support the neo-conservative or Likud agenda in Israel and haven't for decades. In that respect the neo-conservatives are a minority within the American Jewish community but they are a very well organised, very vocal, very powerful minority.

So this is an Australian Government run TV program, for example. Are they anti-semitic? I had always assumed they were not.



http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/20030310_american_dreamers/int_lobe.htm


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].
[/FONT]

 

[Mycroft]

MyCroft, let me ask you a question. You claim that building the settlements is necessary for Israel's survival.

Huh?!! I never made that claim. When you start off with an assumption that far removed from reality it suggests you're not arguing with me, but with some default position you believe I hold. I'd suggest you examine your own biases on the issues.

So, why do they put civilians on those lands which will expose them to danger. If they are building military outposts then I might accept what you are saying. Still they have right to occupy those lands.

Given that I didn't make the initial claim you say I did, this question doesn't make a lot of sense, but one thing you should remember is that a two-state negotiated solution with the Palestinians was not always the default assumption.

We all know that Israel is more than capable of defending itself, so what is the point of that claim.

Israel has worked hard to build the military it has, and it wasn't always as powerful as it is. If you're really interested in the topic, there can be found on-line descriptions of the tactical implications of certain geographic features that can aid your understanding of the strategic value of some land. There are also forum members who are knowlegable of military matters and/or members of the IDF.

 

[a_unique_person]

"But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war".

 

[webfusion]

A_u_p ----- well, which is it?

Total inadmissibility (100%) of acquiring territory

or

inadmissibility of "significant" territory?


Israel is essentially unilaterally planning to hold onto just 5% of the West Bank, while already 0% of Jordanian territory, 0% of Egyptian territory, 0% of Lebanese territory, and 0% of Gaza is being held currently.
Syria can decide, at any time, to honor the terms incumbent upon them from UN 242 and proceed to negotiations. Or not.


By the way, were you aware that palestinians routinely expand their settlements illegally, and do not obtain anyone's permission before building?
Each week, probably hundreds of palestinians start new homes or expand existing ones, all without so much as a piece of paper to authorize that.

If you want evidence of that, you may wish to approach your newsmedia representatives to investigate. It shouldn't be too hard for them to gather such data, and report what they find.

 

[a_unique_person]

My primary interest was not in debating this particular topic, but showing that the criticism of the Palestinian video was wrong, from the start. It did exactly what it said the video did, misrepresenting that resolution. You can argue exactl what it's intention is, but it appears that the Palestinian interpretation is just as arguable as the Israeli one. To just condemn it outright as propaganda intended to deceive by using the listed means of manipulation, is simply wrong.

 

[webfusion]

There is not one word in 242 about the "Palestinians"

 

[a_unique_person]

Don't they exist?

 

[Mycroft]

Don't they exist?

False dichotomy. It's not a choice between them being mentioned in UNSCR 242 and not existing at all.

 

[webfusion]

The criticism of the Palestinian video was accurate and precise.

(my intent was) showing that the criticism of the Palestinian video was wrong, from the start. It did exactly what it said the video did, misrepresenting that resolution.

In that 23-page document, you have yet to show where the misrepresentation occurred.

You say only:
"It offers a different interpretation."

How so? 242 makes no direct reference to palestinian lands, because in the aftermath of the Six Day War of 1967, no such thing existed. At all.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

From your post #6, you have been telling us that the "fight has been for land" and that is just wrong. The fight has been, from the start, arabs refusing jews to settle in palestine. Palestine, which you must by now realize, as defined by the San Remo Conference in the aftermath of WW1. In 1920, were the Jews fighting over Gaza? Hebron? Ramallah? The entire eastern salient of Palestine?
(ceded over the course of the next few years after San Remo to the Hashemite King). Southern Syria? The Sykes-Picot lines in Palestinian Lebanon?

"From the Start" --- in your own words, a_u_p, which does not mean 1948 and the War of Independence. And it certainly doesn't mean 1967 and UN 242.

 

[Mycroft]

My primary interest was not in debating this particular topic, but showing that the criticism of the Palestinian video was wrong, from the start. It did exactly what it said the video did, misrepresenting that resolution. You can argue exactl what it's intention is, but it appears that the Palestinian interpretation is just as arguable as the Israeli one. To just condemn it outright as propaganda intended to deceive by using the listed means of manipulation, is simply wrong.

Except that the claim of the movie is that Israel has "yet" to comply with UNSCR 242, which is false. Israel has withdrawn from the vast majority of territories occupied in 1967.

You, the creaters of the movie, and the Palestinian position in general, propagates this propaganda that depends on maintaining a state of denial. You want to pick and choose the parts of UNSCR 242 that you like, but you want to pretend the parts you don't like don't exist.

One part you like:

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..."

One part you don't like:

"...and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,"

One part you like:

"(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"

One part you don't like:

"(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"

Even in people, there are words of Lord Caradon that you like:

"But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war".

And other words you don't like and would pretend don't exist:

"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 . . . "


The truth is that any honest reading of UNSCR 242 shows that the intent was for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, but that the withdrawal should also be a part of a negotiated peace. Israel did negotiate peace with Egypt and withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, then Israel did negotiate peace with Jordan and agreed with a border with them. Israel has not only satisfied it’s obligations under UNSCR 242, but also stands willing to negotiate further with the Palestinians, if only they could get their act together and form something cohesive to negotiate with. The film deliberately omits any mention of Israeli withdrawals, and states unfactually that it has “yet to comply” as though Israel has done nothing at all. That’s why it’s deceptive, and that’s why claiming it’s not deceptive while being aware of these facts is little more than historical revisionism.

 

[webfusion]

The word "the" is not present in the UNSCR document cited.
It is not open to interpretation. It is a fact that Israel has relinquished Territories. It is a fact that Israel has withdrawn from Gaza & Sinai and has entered into a formal land-demarcation treaty with Jordan, and has withdrawn to the Sykes-Picot lines in Lebanon. Israel has complied, and has even extended its' hand to parties not even mentioned in that document --- the Palestinians.

What do the Palestinians want?
Peace?

Return Shalit, stop the Qassems.
Good start for the Palestinians, here in the period after Ramadan 1427.

Are they simply incapable of it?
I am of the opinion that they are absolutely incapable of it.

 

[a_unique_person]

When Israel first occupied the Palestinians, it was relatively peaceful. The time for action was 1967. Read Robert Manne.

When things get weird, don't expet predictability or rationality. Who knows what desperate people will do, they have nothing to lose.

Arafts second intifada was a mistake, they are painted into a corner just as much as the Iraeli's.

 

[webfusion]

When Israel first occupied the Palestinians, it was relatively peaceful. The time for action was 1967. Read Robert Manne.

Sure, I've read his articles, specifically this one:
Nightmare of Occupation

Your statement is absurd, with all due respect, a_u_p.

1. "When Israel first occupied" --- 1890's

2. "The Palestinians" --- who were the palestinians in the 1890's?

3. "it was relatively peaceful" --- except for the ongoing raids, the killings, the ambushes, the 1929 massacre of the entire jewish population of Hebron and the violent eviction of the jews from their native homes and holy places in jerusalem.

4. "The time for action was 1967" --- war of self defense.
How come in the years 1956-1967 you ignore all the action taking place by fedayyin terrorists? (the fathers and grandfathers of today's islamic terrorists in the HAMAS and other Jihadist organizations).
Oh, nevermind, it was all relatively peaceful. (see #3 above)

5. "Read Robert Manne." --- You mean the part where he says: "I am not a specialist in the politics of the Middle East."
Neither are you, apparently, a_u_p.

Israel is not painted into any corner. Israelis are perfectly capable and wise enough decide the course of our future, and we will do so, without any lame advice from Robert Manne. If that involves building more lovely housing in the suburbs of jerusalem, and reinforcing existing villages and consolidating our hold on the land, and reducing the Palestinians to the margins behind a wall/fence, then so be it.

Their choice. They have made their own lives a nightmare. Apparently they seem to wish to continue it.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/780582.html

• In the Al-Fara'a refugee camp, east of Jenin, two Palestinians were killed by IDF troops - Fadi Sabah, 24, a member of Islamic Jihad, and Mustafa Zlat, 17, of the Al-Auda Brigades.
  
  According to IDF sources, the soldiers encountered six Palestinians planning to attack them. Sabah carried a pistol, and Zlat was armed with an ax.