23-05-2002 20:22									#151
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, Roland, there are quiet a few Europeans (and Americans as well) here that have an anti-Israel stance. They premise their position on Israel being the aggressor. Among the things I have heard here include the following: - that Israel has no right to occupy the West Bank, that the settlements are illegal and must be dismantled, that Israel's actions in the recent weeks is not self defense, but lawless barbarism resulting in genocide.

I am simply address these issues point by point. There is an underlying fear among many that the root cause of the anti-Israeli stance is not based on principle, but on anti-Semitism or something else, such as being anti-European. The Surrealist movement is an example.

If they are anti-Israel on principle, then either we do not share the same value system or we do not understand the facts correctly. A thorough dicussion in warranted.

	23-05-2002 20:29									#152
	Inflate your Upload Space

In that case, I'd appreciate not mixing replies to me with replies to a group of other people.

"- that Israel has no right to occupy the West Bank"

You could make it an issue, but I think it has.

"that the settlements are illegal"

They are.

"and must be dismantled"

Subject to an agreement, those close to Israel will most likely stay.

"that Israel's actions in the recent weeks is not self defense, but lawless barbarism"

Absent a willingness to dismantle at least the settlements that make a palestinian state unviable, it is neither. It is a simple war for territory. Just as it is for Arafat.

"resulting in genocide."

Silly hyperbole.

	23-05-2002 20:40									#153
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Roland, OK, then assume the following: the Jews had a right to settle anywhere in Palestine before 1948. If you disagree with this, let's talk about that first.

But assuming this, how did the Jews lose this right?

Ned

	23-05-2002 20:50									#154
	Put an end to popups!

Let's assume this. First, there is a difference between individuals moving, and government sponsored settlement policies. But even leaving that one out: They lost this right because "Palestine" no longer was one entity. There were borders. (Right of return is a separate although related topic).

Serbs had the right to settle in Slovenia as long as the SFRY existed. Then it broke apart. If they occupied Slovenia today, their settlements would be illegal.

	23-05-2002 21:11									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I just read through all the documents on the Yale site concerning this time period. It appears that the armistices all premised on simple cease fires. There was no resolution of issued of sovereignty or territorial claims. The UN resolutions changed from calling for a Palestinian State to "peaceful resolution" of the disputed territories.

The bottom line, no international institution recognized any sovereignty over the disputed territories.

	23-05-2002 21:14									#156
	Put an end to popups!

If so, Roland, let's assume that Jews had lived prior to 1948 in many places which between 1948-1967 were occupied by Jordan, and are now reffered to as part of the Occupied Territories.

Now, let's furthermore assume that Jews were kicked out of all places in the West Bank, in which they previously had a right to settle. Some were slaughtered too.

I'm asking to assume this, since this is indeed true, but I do not wish to get into a detailed arguement about the extent, since I don't have a scanner.

Now, assuming that, do the Jews who lived there, or their children, do not want to return to those places, which in their view were liberated in 1967?

I'm not claiming that this is the thing about most settlements, but it is indeed true for several, especially the large block near Jerusalem.

	23-05-2002 21:36									#157
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ned:

It is possible that in that period, jordan control was construed as sort of fiduciary. But AFAIK egypt and jordan annexed those territories, yet I'd have to check the international reaction.

Siro:

"I'm asking to assume this, since this is indeed true, but I do not wish to get into a detailed arguement..."

No need for it.

"Now, assuming that, do the Jews who lived there, or their children, do not want to return to those places, which in their view were liberated in 1967?"

Yes, and if you think there is a right of return after having been expelled at least for the generation directly affected, fine.

"but it is indeed true for several, especially the large block near Jerusalem."

It is true for individuals or communities, but Israel is conducting a strategic settlement policy - for anyone who wants to go there. How many returnees are among the 200.000 or so settlers - most of whom came in the 80s and 90s ? How many returnees are in the suburb settlements surrounding the old east jerusalem ?

	23-05-2002 23:43									#158
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Roland, Unilateral action by Jordan in annexing the territory was a violation of the both the Armistice agreements with Israel and UN Resolutions of the topic. Egypt simply initiated the 6-day war. Jordan and Syria followed. Israel retook all of Palestine, some of Syrian and some of Egypt.

The UN issued resolution 242 asking Israel to withdraw from these territories. This resolution is marketedly different in kind from the early resolutions that simply called for a cease fire and negotiations. One can argue that the basis for the settlement "illegality" is 242. However, the resolution is remarkable in its hostility to Israel. It is a virtual declaration of war on Israel.

Back to the settlements for a moment. If one Jew has a right to settle in Palestine, does he have a right to settle next to another Jew?

If the answer is yes, do the two have a right to erect fences for security?

If yes, do they have a right to have the Israeli army help protect them?

You can easily see that if Jews have a right to settle in Palestine, they have the all the other rights I just enumerated.

This does not, however, decide the issue of sovereignty. That is a separate question that is the subject of peace negotiations. It is my understanding that Israel will give the new Palestinian state sovereignty over most of these settlements. But it wants to retain sovereignty over some of these, the ones it believes are necessary for security.

Obviously, from Siro's post, there are other issues beyond security as well.

It remains my view that the Palestinians have a right of self-determination. They have a right to negotiate with Israel concerning borders. But, they do not have a right to make war on Israel unless they get all they demand.

	24-05-2002 00:00									#159
	Got spare money?

does one just have the right to "settle" on land willy, nilly? Who owns the title?

	24-05-2002 00:37									#160
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

That's the thing, that prior to 1948 land in palestine was government owned, or owned by private lords, most of them away, or owned by jews.

most of the people who lived there didn't own the land they sat on.

so if jews came and settled in empty patches of land, they could do that.

now it's a problem, i agree.

and i don't even like settlements.

	24-05-2002 00:41									#161
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

the problem is that now Palestinians are doing just that inside of israel.

They are illegally coming from the territories and settling in villages and cities.

And the police usually is helpless since if they try to evict them, there are huge riots, and the police is too busy preventing terracts.

	24-05-2002 05:00									#162
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov That's the thing, that prior to 1948 land in palestine was government owned, or owned by private lords, most of them away, or owned by jews. most of the people who lived there didn't own the land they sat on. so if jews came and settled in empty patches of land, they could do that. now it's a problem, i agree. and i don't even like settlements.

Siro, as we discussed before in another thread, in many cases Israel and Israeli's acquired title to settlement property, either prior to 1948 or after 1967, by paying their record owners for it. However, the land that nobody has title to is the real kicker. The chain of title would go from the Turkish Sultan to possibly the British through the Mandate. But then to whom?

Jordan and Egypt occuppied the land by force. However, the armistice agreements contained specific provisions that they would not affect sovereignty. The UN never recognized Jordanian or Egyption sovereignty. Neither has it recognized Israeli sovereignty.

This leaves either the British or the Sultan. However, the British only had a Mandate. Therefore, the Brits could not acquire title through sovereignty.

The last sovereign then was the Sultan. But he no longer exists.

I would argue under these circumstances, that the people who first occupy and develop the land acquire good title.

I am willing to bet there are Israeli court decisions that pretty much say the same as the above.

	24-05-2002 05:08									#163
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

squatters...

	24-05-2002 15:55									#164
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned The chain of title would go from the Turkish Sultan to possibly the British through the Mandate. But then to whom?

That's the problem.

Jordan occupied the area, but had no actual rights for it.

It was meant to be palestinian, but the resolution was not binding.

So technically it was Jordan's land until Israel took over it. Since it was never legally Jordan's we didn't occupy it from them. Infact, in some cases Jordan occupied Jewish settlements and expelled or massacared the Jews. So in some ways it was liberation.

But, still while Israel is the ruler in action, it's not legally its.

When the PA was established, some 30% of the land were transfered to it, and since it's internationally accepted, I guess it's theirs.

But Israel has to invade those areas to do the dirty work Arafat doesn't do.

quote: Jordan and Egypt occuppied the land by force. However, the armistice agreements contained specific provisions that they would not affect sovereignty. The UN never recognized Jordanian or Egyption sovereignty. Neither has it recognized Israeli sovereignty.

Exactly.

But I think that the PA sovereignity is internationally recognized, even if not by the UN.

quote: This leaves either the British or the Sultan. However, the British only had a Mandate. Therefore, the Brits could not acquire title through sovereignty.

Why not?

Once you have sovereignity you can technically declare the land government property.

That is pretty much what Israel did, and it used special war time laws, which were originally written by the Brittish. Technically those laws allow abuse of democracy, but they have rarely been used.

They are mostly used for administrative arrest for short periods of time, and for land confiscation.

quote: I would argue under these circumstances, that the people who first occupy and develop the land acquire good title.

Then many of the settlements are legal, since they grew in voids between palestinian settlements.

quote: I am willing to bet there are Israeli court decisions that pretty much say the same as the above.

I don't know really. I'm not sure. Technically Israel never annexed the territories so it's not government property.

	24-05-2002 17:30									#165
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You need to differentiate between ownership and land and sovereignty. And you need to differentiate between individuals moving somewhere and government policies that are "generous" in that regard, or massively sponsor and plan settlements. I'm not sure which points belong where....

I've been taking a quick look at the legal situation. Even leaving aside the exact status of the former mandate area: the ICJ stated wrt Namibia that the unclear legal status of land does not diminish the protection of the population there. And the SC explicitly stated in resolution 446:

quote: ...Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, 1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978; 3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories; 4. Establishes a Commission.... Adopted at the 2134th meeting by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America).

	24-05-2002 20:03									#166
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Hmm...

But look at it this way. Section 1, ignores the settlements and refugee camps established by the Palestinians in the same territories, while under Jordanian control. I would imagine that would be illegal as wel.

Section 3 again does not mention the measures Jordan took against Jewish population in 1948, and does not mention the measures the Palestinians took in 1948-1967 to populate the area.

I would have thought they should at least mention that Jerusalem had a large Jewish quarter prior to 1948 that was ceased and all the Jews were expelled or killed.

	24-05-2002 20:57									#167
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

"Section 1, ignores the settlements and refugee camps established by the Palestinians in the same territories, while under Jordanian control."

Depends on the status of that land. You could argue that the "palestinians" were sovereign in 1920 under the mandate, and Jordan acted as a sort of trustee. If you consider it occupied, a placing of refugees so as to change the demography etc would be illegal too.

"Section 3.. does not mention the measures the Palestinians took in 1948-1967 to populate the area."

It seems it considers that to be palestinian land. But I'd have to read up to see what the exact thinking behind the resolution was.

"I would have thought they should at least mention that Jerusalem had a large Jewish quarter prior to 1948 that was ceased and all the Jews were expelled or killed."

Yes.

	24-05-2002 21:14									#168
	Got spare money?

Ok, then I generally agree with your notion.

Since both side settled on the land it's problematic.

Since the 1947 division was not binding and wasn't accepted by the palestinians, it can't be applied as evidence that the territories belong to the Palestinians.

As for their sovereignity in 1920 - this then also goes for the Jewish citizens of palestine, some of whom lived in lands that were conquered by jordan in 1967.

I would agree with the UN declaration calling the territories disputed (since both pals and jews lived there prior to the war) and I would invent some kind of compromise, in the form of a Palestinian state, with some exchanges of terrain.

I'm not sure whether I agree the settlements are illegal. Most of them are illegitimate, but so are Palestinian settlements in the west bank then.

The west bank today is different from the eve of 1948.


But sadly, I fail to see how could a peace be signed currently, with such mistrust on both sides, and after 8 years of teaching hatred and martyrdom in palestinian schools.

	24-05-2002 21:17									#169
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Just a little history here and you can clearly see where and why the UN went off the tracks. I am amazed that the US did not veto SC 237 given that it has formed the basis of continuing UN aggression.

First are excerpt from a report on the withdrawal UNEF at the request of Egypt ("UAR") just a few days prior to the 6-day war.

Note Arafat is the primary cause of the war.

quote: 6. A number of factors serve to aggravate the situation to an unusual degree, increasing tension and danger. 7. El Fatah activities, consisting of terrorism and sabotage, are a major factor in that they provoke strong reactions in Israel by the Government and population alike. Some recent incidents of this type have seemed to indicate a new level of organization and training of those who participate in these actions. It is clear that the functions and resources of UNTSO do not enable it to arrest these activities. Although allegations are often made, to the best of my knowledge there is no verified information about the organization, central direction and originating source of these acts, which have occurred intermittently in the vicinity of Israel's lines with Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. All three of the latter Governments have officially disclaimed responsibility for these acts and those who perpetrate them. I am not in a position to say whether any or all of the Governments concerned have done everything they reasonably can to prevent such activities across their borders. The fact is that they do recur with disturbing regularity. 14. I do not believe that any of the Governments concerned are so careless of the welfare of their own people or of the risks of a spreading conflict as to deliberately embark on military offensives across their borders, unless they become convinced, rightly or wrongly, that they are threatened. Nevertheless, there is good reason to fear that the withdrawal of UNEF will give rise to increased danger along the Armistice Demarcation Line and the International Frontier between Israel and the United Arab Republic. The presence of UNEF has been a deterrent and restraining influence along both lines. There are some particularly sensitive areas involved, notably Sharm el-Sheikh and Gaza. The former concerns the Strait of Tiran. In the Gaza Strip there are 307,000 refugees and the substantial Palestine Liberation Army must also be taken into account.

	24-05-2002 21:21									#170
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

GP - about squatter rights - I learnt some time ago that squatter rights in territories purchased by Jews prior to the creation of Israel, were indeed respected.

The squatter rights during war time are problematic. Some of the palestinians were expelled after decisions were made on a tactical level, mainly in sites where heavy resistance and cooperation with arab forces was expected.

That's hardly squatter rights... but it's war... go fig.

Also, Israel confiscated land from arabs.. but also from Jews. It has regulations which allow it to do so, in some two or three cases, one being war, and one being the interests of the state.

The territories confiscated were usually farmlands confiscated to be worked by the state, employing better methods of agriculture. It's not that just, but you do that to feed a state. And it's not like the arab society was open for changes and able to satisfy that need in other ways.

Though, it might have been more just to lease the land or something, the state decided to confiscate it. I can't do much about it now.

About rights of people who escaped... most of their homes were villages and such... primitive and simple. Today most are ruins, and some are built over. In the situation, you couldn't expect to hold their property in custody for them.

	24-05-2002 21:29									#171
	Put an end to popups!

The war starts on June 5. The SC issues a number of resolutions, 233-236 calling for a cessation of hostilities. On June 9, Israel invades the Golan Heights. On the same day the USSR sends the SC a letter that is entitle as follows: "Cessation of military action by Israel and withdrawal if Israeli forces from those parts of the territory of the UAR, Jordan and Syria which they have seized as the result of aggression."

But note, who was blowing up Isreali citizens and who ordered the UNEF to withdraw? Who blockaded Israeli shipping? Who moved whole armies into the Sinai. Who began shelling Jerusalem? Who made the following statement:

"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy, which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map" (President Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967).

The UN sided with aggression.

Last edited by Ned on 25-05-2002 at 01:42

	24-05-2002 21:35									#172
	Suffering from ads?

Next, we have SC resolution 237 which declares that the 4th Geneva convention applies. The 4th Geneva Convention has two parts. One for wars between states. The other for wars where one party is not a state. Israel has never agreed that portions of the 4th Geneva convention that concern states applies to Palestine.

quote: The Security Council, Considering the urgent need to spare the civil Populations andthe prisoners of the war in the area of conflict in the Middle Eastadditional sufferings, Considering that essential and inalienable human rights should berespected even during the vicissitudes of war Considering that all the obligations of the Geneva Conventionrelative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949 /5 shouldbe complied with by the parties involved in the conflict, 1. Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfareand security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operationshave taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants whohave fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities ; 2. Recommends to the Governments concerned the scrupulous respect ofthe humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of warand the protection of civilian persons in time of war contained in theGeneva Conventions of 12 August 1949;/6 3. Requests the Secretary-General to follow the effectiveimplementation of this resolution and to report to the Security Council. Adopted unanimously at the 1361st meeting. 5/ United Nations, Treaty Serics, vol. 75 (1950), No. 972. 6/ United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 75 (1950), Nos. 970-973

	24-05-2002 21:48									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Next is SC 242.

quote: The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter. 1. Affirms that the fulfillment 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 Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) 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; 2. Affirms further the necessity: (a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; (b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; (c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; 3. Requests the Secretary­General 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; 4. Requests the Secretary­General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible

President Johnson and Prime Minister Eskol met on Nov. 22, 1967, the date 242 was passed, and issued a joint statement that in part reads:

quote: The President and the Prime Minister restated their dedication to the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with the spirit of the Security Council resolution of November 22, 1967. They also noted that the principles set forth by President Johnson on June 19 constituted an equitable basis for such a settlement.

Johnson's statement:

quote: President Johnson’s Five Principles for Peace in the Middle East Speech by President Johnson (excerpts) (June 19, 1967) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, finally, let me turn to the Middle East-and to the tumultuous events of the past months. Those events have proved the wisdom of five great principles of peace in the region. The first and greatest principle is that every nation in the area has a fundamental right to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors. For the people of the Middle East the path to hope does not lie in threats to end the life of any nation. Such threats have become a burden to the peace, not only of that region but a burden to the peace of the entire world. In the same way, no nation would be true to the United Nations Charter or to its own true interests if it should permit military success to blind it to the fact that its neighbors have rights and its neighbors have interests of their own. Each nation, therefore, must accept the right of others to live. This last month, I think, shows us another basic requirement for settlement. It is a human requirement: justice for the refugees. A new conflict has brought new homelessness. The nations of the Middle East must at last address themselves to the plight of those who have been displaced by wars. In the past, both sides have resisted the best efforts of outside mediators to restore the victims of conflict to their homes or to find them other proper places to live and work. There will be no peace for any party in the Middle East unless this problem is attacked with new energy by all and, certainly, primarily by those who are immediately concerned. A third lesson from this last month is that maritime rights must be respected. Our nation has long been committed to free maritime passage through international waterways; and we, along with other nations, were taking the necessary steps to implement this principle when hostilities exploded. If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other, I think it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Strait of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime passage must be preserved for all nations. Fourth, this last conflict has demonstrated the danger of the Middle Eastern arms race of the last 12 years. Here the responsibility must rest not only on those in the area but upon the larger states outside the area. We believe that the scarceresources could be used much better for technical and economic development. We have always opposed this arms race, and our own military shipments to the area have consequently been severely limited. Now the waste and futility of the arms race must be apparent to all the peoples of the world. And now there is another moment of choice. The United States of America, for its part, will use every resource of diplomacy and every counsel of reason and prudence to try to find a better course. As a beginning, I should like to propose that the United Nations immediately call upon all of its members to report all shipments of all military arms into this area and to keep those shipments on file for all the peoples of the world to observe. Fifth, the crisis underlines the importance of respect for political independence and territorial integrity of all the states of the area. We reaffirmed that principle at the height of this crisis. We reaffirm it again today on behalf of all. This principle can be effective in the Middle East only on the basis of peace between the parties. 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. Further, there just must be adequate recognition of the special interest of three great religions in the holy places of Jerusalem. These five principles are not new, but we do think they are fundamental. Taken together, they point the way from uncertain armistice to durable peace. We believe there must be progress toward all of them if there is to be progress toward any. 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. Certainly, troops must be withdrawn; but there must also be recognized rights of national life, progress in solving the refugee problem, freedom of innocent maritime passage, limitation of the arms race, and respect for political independence and territorial integrity. But who will make this peace where all others have failed for 20 years or more? Clearly the parties to the conflict must be the parties to the peace. Sooner or later, it is they who must make a settlement in the area. It is hard to see how it is possible for nations to live together in peace if they cannot learn to reason together. But we must still ask, Who can help them? Some say it should be the United Nations; some call for the use of other parties. We have been first in our support of effective peacekeeping in the United Nations, and we also recognize the great values to come from mediation. We are ready this morning to see any methods tried, and we believe that none should be excluded altogether. Perhaps all of them will be useful and all will be needed. I issue an appeal to all to adopt no rigid view on these matters. I offer assurance to all that this Government of ours, the Government of the United States, will do its part for peace in every forum, at every level, at every hour. Yet there is no escape from this fact: The main responsibility for the peace of the region depends upon its own peoples and its own leaders of that region. What will be truly decisive in the Middle East will be what is said and what is done by those who live in the Middle East.

Note the emphasis on safe and secure borders. Note also this paragraph.

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

	24-05-2002 22:09									#174
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Next we have the "interpretation" of 242 by both the British and the US ambassadors.

quote: The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear." This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."

	24-05-2002 22:15									#175
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Next, we have SC 252, which gets more to the point on settlements. The US abstains!

quote: The Security Council, Recalling General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967 and 2254 (ES-V) of 14 July 1967, Having considered the letter of the Permanent Representative of Jordan on the situation in Jerusalem (S/8560)1/ and the report of the Secretary-General (S/8146),2/ Having heard the statements made before the Council, Noting that since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures and actions in contravention of those resolutions, Bearing in mind the need to work for a just and lasting peace, Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, 1. Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with the General Assembly resolutions mentioned above; 2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status; 3. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution. Adopted at the 1426th meeting by 13 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (Canada and United States of America). _____________________ 1/ Ibid. 2/ Ibid., Twenty-second year, Supplement for July, August and September 1967.

	24-05-2002 22:22									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Next is 298. The US, (Nixon and Kissinger now) votes in favor.

quote: United Nations Security Council Resolution 298 September 25, 1971 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Security Council, Recalling its resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 and the earlier General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967 concerning measures and actions by Israel designed to change the status of the Israeli-occupied section of Jerusalem, Having considered the letter of the Permanent Representative of Jordan on the situation in Jerusalem 1/ and the reports of the Secretary-General,2/ and having heard the statements of the parties concerned on the question, Reaffirming the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible, Noting with concern the non-compliance by Israel with the above-mentioned resolutions, Noting with concern also that since the adoption of the above-mentioned resolutions Israel has taken further measures designed to change the status and character of the occupied section of Jerusalem. 1. Reaffirms its resolutions 252 (1968) and 267 (1969); 2. Deplores the failure of Israel to respect the previous resolutions adopted by the United Nations concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the City of Jerusalem; 3. Confirms in the clearest possible terms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status; 4. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all previous measures and actions and to take no further steps in the occupied section of Jerusalem which may purport to change the status of the City or which would prejudice the rights of the inhabitants and the interests of the international community, or a just and lasting peace; 5. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the President of the Security Council and using such instrumentalities as he may choose, including a representative or a mission, to report to the Council as appropriate and in any event within sixty days on the implementation of the present resolution. Adopted at the 1582nd meeting by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (Syrian Arab Republic). 1/ Ibid., document S/10318. 2/ Ibid., Twenty-second Year, Supplement for July, August and September 1967, documents S/8052 and S/8146; Twenty-fourth Year, Supplement for April, May and June 1969, documents S/9149 and Add.1; Ibid., Supplement for October, November and December 1969, document S/9537; Ibid., Twenty-sixth year, Supplement for January, February and March 1971, document S/10124; Ibid., Supplement for April, May and June 1971, document S/10124/Add.1; and Ibid., Supplement for July, August and September 1971, document S/10124/Add.2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: The United Nations.

	24-05-2002 22:38									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

What we see from the above is that the UN adopted the USSR view that the 6-day war was Israeli aggression. From this, all else followed.

The UN clearly has a view that the parts of the 4th Geneva Convention concerning wars between states applies to Palestine. Thus, in its view, the settlements are illegal.

Israel does not accept these interpretations. The result is that the UN is in a virtual state of War with Israel.

	25-05-2002 01:02									#178
	Got spare money?

The Right of Return

Central to the endless wars in the ME is continued Arab and UN aggression, particularly on the so-called right of return of palestinian refugees that has lingered since 1948. Here is a link to a one-side UN document on the topic.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85...01!OpenDocument

Here is Israel's position that makes it clear why the UN has joined the Arab cause.

quote: "The origin of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem was the Arab rejection of the United Nations partition resolution and the war which they declared against the State of Israel one day after its establishment. The responsibility is therefore theirs. Had the Arabs accepted the resolution, there would have been no refugee problem. Furthermore, because of the wars conducted by the Arab States against Israel, Jews who had lived for thousands of years in Arab lands were forced to leave, abandoning all their property and possessions. Per about 590,000 Arab refugees there were about 600,000 Jewish refugees from Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Libya and the rest of North Africa. "Refugees in other parts of the world have been successfully integrated into the national community to which they belong. The only exception to the general rule is the situation of the Arab refugees. The Arab States have refused to absorb and integrate their brothers into their respective societies. The Arab States have made the "restoration" of the "legitimate rights" of those refugees - namely, their return to Israel - the central demand. That demand constitutes a serious distortion of the realities of the refugee problem. "We do not intend to send back Jews to Iran, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Yemen and other Arab countries, to be hanged in the public squares of Baghdad and to be deprived of their human rights and become third-class citizens, imprisoned in ghettoes, as in Syria now, in order to take Arab refugees in their place. The fact is that an exchange of population has taken place between Israel and the Arab countries. "The difference between Israel and the Arab States is that while we in Israel from the outset integrated all the Jewish refugees into our society, the Arab States deliberately perpetuated the "refugee status" of their own brethen in order to use them as a political weapon against Israel. The Arab demand for the return of the refugees to Israel, coupled with proposals for the establishment of a Palestinian State, is calculated to bring about the destruction of Israel. The refugees should be resettled and integrated into the Arab societies in which they now live. In any peace settlement specific provisions should be made to enable all refugees to find accommodation and employment and receive adequate compensation. "In any discussion of reparations for the refugees, Israel will raise the question of reparations for Jewish refugees from Arab lands and insist that all their claims be settled within the framework of the final peace agreement."

	25-05-2002 01:36									#179
	Support Apolyton

Just in case one does not fully appreciated how far down the path of aggression the UN has gone, compare the UN resolutions and documents with this,

"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy, which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map" (President Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967)."

	26-05-2002 00:22									#180
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

hi ,

well Ned , at least you seem to be getting all the facts , ....or other wise you are a person who is incredibly smart , .....

have a nice day