Don't be disingenuous. Recognize the fact that there has never in the history of the world been an independent state of Palestine. These terrorities are occupied by Israel now, but they were previously occupied by Arab countries. Israel controls it as the result of defending themselves against attacks from those Arab neighbors. Like most Israelis, I believe in a two-state solution. There should be a Palestinian state, but if one was established, it would be the first in the history of the world.

"Echos Israel's view?" Sort of like how you reflexively parrot any claim, no matter how ridiculous, that criticizes Israel?

E.g.: "when it comes to the West Bank, they refer to it as disputed territory when it is clear it is occupied territory." Obviously this is not clear to Israelis who
oppose giving up the West Bank. We're talking about territory gained by Israel in a defensive war, there's no "dispute" about that. It seems pretty clear to me that no other government can make any legitimate claim to that territory, certainly not Hamas or the so-called Palestinian Authority. What logic would lead you to suggest that it's "occupied" or even "disputed?"

I guess that will remain a mystery, since when it comes to poltics, you don't need to back up your claims with logic. So how are you any better than the religious fundamentalists you denounce? While your posts on religion are often thought-provoking, this one is thought-inhibiting, and if you keep it up, you're going to lose some number of readers (the number that can think for themselves.)

I have an unreleted question (sorry but this post is the closest I've seen to an 'open mike' at onegoodmove): If we can agree that Israel's rhetoric on things like the Sheeba farms is merely propaganda, then why can't we say that Hizbollah's 'justification' for kidnapping Israeli's (that it was for the Palestinian cause) is also contrived? Even if its true, does the IDFs terrible control of, say, Gaza permit another state/group to attack Israel on that claim. Are Canadian muslims justified in attacking United States troops because of the plight of the Iraqi's?

It's really quite simple let Israel abide by all the U.N. resolutions on the subject. They expect others to abide by U.N. resolutions. It is simply hypocritical for Israel to accept only those resolutions they like, as it is hypocritical for the arab countries to fail to abide by the same resolutions. The only difference that I see is that there are never sanctions against Israel and there is seldom pressure from the United States for them to accept them. I'd like to see peace in the area, and there is intransigence on both sides, but their are no guarantees that the imbalance of power between the two sides will remain the same.

How does Norm decide what is the "root" causes for the Israeli-Arab conflict? Without any context, it seems to me he chooses those based upon their congruency with his worldview.

Nate, there is no historical or araeological proof for any state of Israel that existed in the region of Palestine that that Israel laid claim to.

The lands that you claim were occupied by Arabs who had more claims to these lands than the Israelis.

The United Nation and the world community do not recognise Israel's land claims to any Arab territories annexed and occupied by force

Sorry to burst your bubble.

The fact remains the Arabs living in the region of Palestine for more 1400 years were the local majority that owned more than 50% of the lands of Palestine. These Arabs had the right to set up a state of Palestine in the region, while rejecting the right of the Jewish minority which composed of 80% illegal immigrants from Europe with no ancestry in the Middle East.

Nate, you are the one being disingenuous here by rewriting history.

Syria has made it very clear that the Shebaa Farms region belongs to Lebanon. "The territory, seized by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war, is claimed by Beirut with Damascus's approval." Source:

"UN envoy calls on Lebanon and Syria to firm up borders."

Egypt Information Channel, 2006-03-24.

Lebanese PM again urges Syria to establish diplomatic ties, draw up border. Apr 21, 2006

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/AFP/2006/04/21/1468785

[Lebanese PM] Siniora also made it clear that an Israeli withdrawal from the disputed Shebaa Farms which Beirut regards as Lebanese territory was "a priority national issue." "It is incumbent upon Israel to withdraw from it, hand over the Lebanese detainees in its prisons, submit the maps of the landmines it left in the South, and stop its infringements on Lebanese sovereignty."

====

Shebaa Farms was originally contested between Syria and Lebanon. Israel has utterly no claims to the Shebaa Farms region.

In 1981, Israel officially annexed the Shebaa Farms region and East Jerusalem, a unilateral annexation that is not recognised by the UN or international community.

In 2000, Lebanon disputed Israel's compliance with UN Resolution 425 (1978). Lebanon claimed that the Shebaa Farms area was actually Lebanese, and that the Israelis should therefore withdraw from there as well. Lebanon asserted that the UN certification of the Israeli withdrawal was "invalid," because of Lebanon's claim to the Farms

Israel's annexation of the Shebaa Farms has been contested by Hezbollah (since May 2000) as a reason for its continued attacks on Israel.

Israel has annexed Shebaa Farms in a globally condemned move which defies the UN Security Resolution 242 of 1967 which calls on Israel to return all lands conquered in the 1960s and for Israwel to respect the territorial rights and sovereignty of its neighbours.

4 decades later, Israel has violated this resolution every year without being punished by UN sanctions, which any other country would in its place.

Resolution 242 does not call for Israel to return all lands conquered in the 1960's. They returned over 90 percent of the territory just by giving back the Sinai. There are only a tiny amount of territories in dispute, and Israel took those territories as a defensive measure.

I think if there was no Hamas and Hizballah calling for Israel's destruction, those territories could easily be given back. Israel has shown they are willing to make peace. Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah haven't shown that.

Israel took those territories as a defensive measure.

Once you establish settlements they are no longer defensive. You simply move your borders and need more territory as a buffer zone. I think the idea that they are defensive is mostly bullshit.

"Nate, there is no historical or araeological proof for any state of Israel that existed in the region of Palestine that that Israel laid claim to."

This statement is ridiculous. To say there is no historic precedent for a Jewish state in Palestine is ignorant and, in its implication that Israel does not have the right to exist, borderline antisemitic.

But Kes, the Arab countries surrounding Israel have more right to this land? What have any of these countries done to TRULY help Palestinian refugees? They occupied their land prior to 1967 as surely as Israel now does. Is Israel blameless? No. But the refusal to lay any blame on the Arab countries, a tactic seen time and time again among the anti-Israel academic sect, is simply eyebrow raising.

Norm, what I meant by "defensive" was that Israel won the territories in defending itself against foreign invasion. They did seek to conquer additional territory from the outset.

robomace is lying to us as the 242 resolution clearly call for Israel to return all lands it occupied.

Exact text:

• 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;

=========

robomace also lies that Israel has returned 90% of the lands.

Israel only returned Sinai to Egypt in 1979, soliciting many favourable turns in return for the return of soten territory that Israel had to return any way.

Israel still occupies Golan Heights, West Bank and also Gaza Strip (where it invades at will and control all entry points). In 1981, Israel even applied its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the Golan Heights with the Golan Heights Law.

IN 1981, Israel unilaterally annexed Shebaa Famrs region and East Jerusalem, which is not recognised by the UN and world community.

Kindly let us know why Jerusalem is a defensive territory, when the UN Partition Plan of 1947 states that Jerusalem will be internationalised and will not be under the Arabs or the Jews.

Kindly also tell us, robomace, what are the facts supporting your claim that israel returned 90% of the Arab lands it occupies when Israel still occupies, Golan Heights, West Bank, East Jerusalem, Shebaa Farms, Gaza Strip (which it invades and bombs at will and controls all access points)?

robomace is lying to us as the 242 resolution clearly call for Israel to return all lands it occupied.

Exact text:

• 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;

=========

robomace also lies that Israel has returned 90% of the lands.

Israel only returned Sinai to Egypt in 1979, soliciting many favourable turns in return for the return of soten territory that Israel had to return any way.

Israel still occupies Golan Heights, West Bank and also Gaza Strip (where it invades at will and control all entry points). In 1981, Israel even applied its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the Golan Heights with the Golan Heights Law.

IN 1981, Israel unilaterally annexed Shebaa Famrs region and East Jerusalem, which is not recognised by the UN and world community.

Kindly let us know why Jerusalem is a defensive territory, when the UN Partition Plan of 1947 states that Jerusalem will be internationalised and will not be under the Arabs or the Jews.

Kindly also tell us, robomace, what are the facts supporting your claim that israel returned 90% of the Arab lands it occupies when Israel still occupies, Golan Heights, West Bank, East Jerusalem, Shebaa Farms, Gaza Strip (which it invades and bombs at will and controls all access points)?

In this 33-day Lebanese invasion, Israel has fired or dropped a DAILY AVERAGE fired 13,200 - 19,800 aerial-delivered missiles, 13,200- 19,800 bombs as well as 660,000 artilery shells on Lebaese civilian areas all over Lebanon, regardless of whether they have anything to do with the Hezbollah like Christian radio stations and the international air port.

Source from human rights watch:

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/16/lebano14011.htm

After being bombed all over Lebanon, Hezbollah fired back in resistance with 3970 Katyashu rockets from the 1940s which are notoriously faulty and inaccurate.

Before Israel bombed civilian areas, Hezbollah targeted Israeli soldiers, not civilians.

Just to put in perspective.

Norm, what UN resolutions has Israel not abided by? 242? 242 doesnt call for Israel to withdraw unilaterally, it calls for Israel to withdraw in exchange for peace. The Arabs have been mostly unwilling to make peace, so Israel has been mostly unwilling to withdraw. When Egypt was willing to make peace, Israel was willing to withdraw.

Incidently, Israel followed the UN resolution that required it to withdraw from Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah did not keep its side of the bargain. Yet Israel is accused of being the guilty party.

Let's remember that Arlen Specter was the guy who wrote the "single bullet theory" in the JFK killing. He's a liar and a shill.

Why doesn't Israel give up these farms? Are there settlements there? Is it a tactically strong position? Are they holding onto it as a negotiating 'chip'?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525915046&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I wonder how quickly Kofi et al will denounce this "grave violaion of the fragile cease-fire" and how it "undermines the tenuous calm"... (insert cricket sounds here)...

Israel, US foil Iran arms transfer Metehan Demir, Jerusalem Post correspondent, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 21, 2006

Israeli and American intelligence agencies alerted Turkish authorities last Friday that several Lebanon-bound Iranian planes, loaded with military hardware meant for the Hizbullah, were making their way through Turkish airspace, The Jerusalem Post has learned. According to information obtained by the Post, the intelligence agencies were tracking several suspicious Iranian aircraft as they were taking off from an Iranian airfield. Turkey was then warned about the planes and their cargo which were to fly over Turkish airspace. Shortly after Turkey was tipped off, Iranian officials ordered the planes to return to their point of departure, where, according to unconfirmed Turkish reports, the arms were removed from the Iranian planes. After offloading the arms, the planes took off again and were forced to land in Turkey for inspection by the airport authorities. Turkish aviation officials told the Post that no weapons were found on the planes. Since the war with Hizbullah erupted last month, and especially since the ceasefire, Turkey has intercepted several Iranian and Syrian Lebanon-bound ships in the Eastern Mediterranean sea, as well as two transit trucks from Syria, the Post has learned. Meanwhile, the London-based Arab daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported on Monday that large amounts of rockets have been transferred from Iran to Syria en route to the Hizbullah in Lebanon. According to the report, the Iranian Revolutionary Commands have set up a special body in Damascus whose aim is to supply all of Hizbullah's needs. It was also reported on Monday that British officials were investigating reports that night vision goggles uncovered in a Hizbullah hideout were manufactured in Britain, a Foreign Office spokesman said on Monday. "The Israeli Defense Forces have told us that they have found some night vision equipment in southern Lebanon that they believe to have been manufactured in Britain," the spokesman said. Britain's The Times newspaper reported Monday that Israeli officials believe the goggles may be from a consignment sold by Britain in 2003 to Iran. The sale to Teheran was intended to bolster Iranian efforts to combat heroin smuggling across the Iran-Afghanistan border as part of the United Nations Drugs Control Program, the newspaper claimed.

If true it sounds like since the arms didn't reach Lebanon there was no violation to the agreement. Night-Vision equipment is a violation? I have no doubt that Hezbollah will attempt to violate the agreement, and it is also clear that Israel will also violate the agreement. Does anyone really believe that anyone thought this agreement was any more than a stop gap because both sides wanted the fighting to stop.

Kes is lying about me lying. Well, he might not be lying, he just might not understand. He even quoted 242, trying to disprove my point, but instead supported it, and he doesn't realize that. The resolution doesn't call for Israel to withdraw from 'all' or 'the', but just territories. This was part of the negotiations leading up to the resolutions. Resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw from all territories were rejected. 242 is the compromise resolution. So, by Kes saying I am lying, he is mistaken, or dishonest.

Also, the Sinai constituted over 90 percent of the territories taken during the six day war. I am referring to land mass. Perhaps Kes is viewing the Sinai as one part of the territory, Gaza as another, the West Bank as another, and Golan Heights as another. In that viewpoint, Israel hasn't given back 90 percent of the territory. However, since Egypt has given up claims to Gaza and Jordan has given up claims to the West Bank, there is only the Golan Heights and Syria to deal with. But again, if you are dealing with land mass, Israel has given back over 90 percent of the territories taken during the six day war. If you don't believe me, do the math...

The Sinai is 23,500 sq miles, Gaza is 141 sq miles, West Bank is 2200 sq miles, and Golan Heights is 400 sq miles. The Sinai makes up 90 percent of that territory.

You're 100% correct robomace.

but when someone like kes says there's no historical evidence that Israel ever existed as a country prior to 1948, look who you're dealing with.

He's completely off his rocker.

And snack attack, Israel wont give up the Farms because (1) the area a great defensive position overlooking Syria and (2) Israel took the land from Syria, not Lebanon. Syria has since relinquished its claim over the land, but the international community recognizes that land as belonging to Syria, not Lebanon. And anyone who really thinks that Hezbollah started this mess because of that little bit of land is naive beyond belief.

Norm, you write: "If true it sounds like since the arms didn't reach Lebanon there was no violation to the agreement. "

here's a perfect example. the Arabs are never at fault. the arms didn't reach lebanon because Israel stopped them reaching Lebanon, in spite of attempts by Syria and Iran to get them there. I don't understand your logic. You criticize Israel for violating the cease fire. Yet when one shows that Israel violated the cease fire to stop the Arabs from violating the cease fire, Israel is still condemned and the Arabs are off the hook because "the arms didn't reach Lebanon." Warped.

By your logic, the British should not have arrested the 21 men who were planning on blowing up planes last week because they didnt blow the planes up. Does intent not count for anything? By your logic, the plot needed to have taken place for the British to stop it (!) Warped.

worth reading on UN resolutions generally, and the Hezbollah/Israeli one passed last week.

http://www.slate.com/id/2148106/nav/tap2/

Why doesn't israel turn the farms over to syria? Will they not take them? It syria won't take them, why doesn't israel turn them over to lebanon?

Tactically, how valuable is this area for defending Israel? You say it overlooks Syria - is it valuable for recon or something?

I don't believe that hzblah will stop fighting israel if they give back the farms, but since no one (including israel) seems to think they belong to israel, why not return them to syria? If syria wants to give they to someone else, who cares?

I guess that's just never been done before without a lot of talking first. It would certainly get a lot of people's attention.

I've often wanted the Israeli Prime Minister to just go on TV and invite all Israel's enemies to talk. As simple as that. Call up Assad and ask him to jerusalem for tea. I'd love to see the reaction.

I admit to making a mistake in that I thought robomace claimed that Israel returned 90&% of all the Arab lands that Israel occupied.

However, I'll point out that under UN resolutions 242 and 383 require Israwel to return territories occupied by israel since 1960s and no exception to this term has been made for Israel.

Isral has to return all these lands and it has not done so, expct to return Sinai to Egypt in 1981 i.e. 14 years asfter the 1967 Un resolution 242 calls Israel to do so.

From 1967-1981, Israel even bilt Jewish settlements in Sinai, which proves it did not to intend to return Sinai

Israel only agreed to give up this land after blackmialing Egypt to give it a peace treaty, which Egypt is not required to do so under the UN resolutions.

However robomace is still lying and being painfully obvious at it.

He or she is trying to justify the fact that Israel does not have to return all the territiories it occupied since the 1960s because the resolutions 242 did not use the word "all territories".

That's BS reasoning.

Did any UN resolution say that israel has any right to occupyu Arab lands that does not belong to Israel?

None exists as such an act violates UN's own charter which Israel has to agree to to be a recognised member of UN

Under UN resolutions 242 and 383 require Israwel to return territories occupied by israel since 1960s and no exception to this term has been made for Israel.

That's a fact that I'll let robomace try to refute if he or she insistst that israel does not have to return all Arab lands it occupied since 1960s.

=====================

roboace also ignores the second term in the UN 242 resolution that calls onn Israel to respect the territorial sovereignty of Israel's Arab neigbours.

Insistence on occupying Arab lands from these Arab countries is a clear violation of this term, besides the fact that the world community does not recognise any of Israel's claims over any territory it conquered since the 1960s.

Here are the terms again.

Exact text:

• 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;

Read it and decide for yourself whether Israel has the right to keep any of the Arab territories that israeli occupied by military force.

the reason kes made the mistake about the "90# of arab lands" is that he included the land WITHIN THE 1948 BORDERS OF ISRAEL. while this may be technically true if you accept the idea that all lands that israel has or does occupy are somehow intrinsically "arab" (which i don't. by virtue of what? ottoman/egyptian/jordanian occupation?), it doesn't allow for any solution to the conflict that doesn't require israel to simply disappear. this is racist lunacy, but so what? this argument is full of racist lunacy, on all sides. the main problem with this thinking is its just completely unrealistic and therefore unhelpful. regarding 242, kes, robomace made it clear that the words "all" and "the" were specifically rejected by the council that drew up 242, which was drafted in english (not french). this means that there was an awareness that in my view constitutes permission that the returned land could not be expected to be EXACTLY equivilant to the land conquered. adjustments would have to be made. that's the clear INTENTION of 242. the wording was very specific because those guys, in spite of working for the un, weren't entirely stupid and didn't expect israel to just disappear. like you do, kes.

Kes, why dont you do some real research for once. Here is what Lord Caradon said on the issue of withdrawing from "all" territories from 1967. Lord Caradon, in case you don't know, actually wrote the resolution, so I'd say his explanation carries some weight:

"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."

Still want to argue, Kes?

Silence from kes. There is a god.

Hi Zak and Jonathan, thanks for allowing me to prove my case that robomace is lying or misleading people here that Israel did not need to return all the territories that it conquered in the 1960s.

It is my pleasure to prove that once again the pro-Israeli crowd are dishonest and provide one-sided buiased reporting with clear-cut ommission of important facts

In a vain effort to justify that Israel does not have to return all of the territories that it occupied and annexed in the 1960s, robomace brought out this so-called semantic dispute with resolution 242.

It must be noted that robomace did a cut and paste job from sources like wikipedia without giving you the source.

The reason? She wants to omit the evidence against such selective interpretation by the Israel government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSecurityCouncilResolution242 There’s also a French and English versions of the Resolution 242. “The difference between the two version lies in the absence of a definite article ("the") in the English version while a definite article ("de + les" = "des") is present in the French version. While some observers argue that the absence of the definite article in English does not preclude an interpretation meaning "all territories", others counter by claiming that the presence of the definite article in French grammar does not preclude an interpretation meaning "territories" rather than "the territories".”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSecurityCouncilResolution242#Presumptionagainstuncertainty

Kindly read it for yourself.

Points to consider against the Israeli position

1] “The French representative to the Security Council, in the debate immediately after the vote, asserted: the French text, which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories" We were likewise gratified to hear the United Kingdom representative stress the link between this paragraph of his resolution and the principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by force.... ”

The world does not recognise the legitimact in the acquisition of territories by force.

2] Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution, makes it clear that Israel must withdraw from East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai that were occupied in the 1967 conflict. “It was from occupied territories that the [r]esolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact...East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I[t] was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted [7].”

I’ll repeat again.

Although Lord Cardon also says that “We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line” < < < ,

he makes it clear that “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.”< < <

3] Israel cannot claim its right to hold occupied Arab Arabs from the 1960s war because of international law.

“Supporters of a full withdrawal argue that the absence of the words "all" or "the" before territories cannot mean that Israel can retain some of the territories it captured in 1967, because there is a presumption in International Law that a document should be interpreted in order to make its meaning clear, and interpretations that lead to uncertainty should be avoided.[citation needed] The Israeli claim that Resolution 242 requires only a partial withdrawal from territories creates uncertainty as to which territories it could retain and which it could withdraw from, and this cannot have been the intention of the Security Council, according to advocates of a full withdrawal Supporters of a full withdrawal argue that the absence of the words "all" or "the" before territories cannot mean that Israel can retain some of the territories it captured in 1967, because there is a presumption in International Law that a document should be interpreted in order to make its meaning clear, and interpretations that lead to uncertainty should be avoided.[citation needed] The Israeli claim that Resolution 242 requires only a partial withdrawal from territories creates uncertainty as to which territories it could retain and which it could withdraw from, and this cannot have been the intention of the Security Council, according to advocates of a full withdrawal”

4] Some claim that Preambulatory Clause 2, "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" implies a total withdrawal, based on a principle of noscitur a sociis under international law on interpretation of treaties.[citation needed] Although preambulatory clauses never include specific directives, they should be used to interpret the operative paragraphs.[citation needed] According to such a view, the withdrawal should be from "all territories". On the other hand, many proponents of the partial withdrawal interpretation argue that the second operating principle of the resolution recognizing the rights of all States to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries" is an acknowledgment that final boundaries are to be negotiated between the States party to the dispute, and therefore total withdrawal is not a requirement of the resolution.

================

HI all, I’ll leave it to you all to read this and decide for yourself whether Israel has any right to occupy lands from other Arab countries with no need to return it.

Kindly note that this so-called right is not recognized in the world today and any sovereign nation that occupies the land of another will be punished by sanctions such as the case of Iraq invading Kuwait, even though Saddam had found some historical evidence.

Is it fair to condemn Arab countries for illegal occupation of the lands of another country while permissible for Israel to do so?

Unlike people like Zak, jonathan and robomac, I’ll let you decide my sources before you decide.

: >

TYPO: Unlike people like Zak, jonathan and robomac, I’ll let you READ my sources before you decide.

: >

Oh yeah, I did wanted to avoid bringing up the Geneva Code as a rebuttal to zak, jonathan or robomace or whatever name you can think of.

But why wait to rebut them the second time?

1] The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem is under a continuing regime of belligerent occupation, to which the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is fully applicable.

2] Israel built Jewish settlements on Egypts Sinai Peninsular which it captured and occupied in 1967 and 1973 to colonise it, because oil resources were found there. Israel only finally decided to return it, even though the UN resolutions require Israel to do so WITH NO EXCEPTIONS stated for any occupied territory to Egypt in 1981 for a peace treaty that Egypt was never obliged to give.

This was in clear vioation of the Geneva Convention, that requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure.

One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'"

Under this article, Israel also does not have the right to have Jewish settlers to colonise the Arab lands that Israeli occupied after expelling 8 million Arabs from their attacks and occupations of Palestine, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights etc for the last 5 decades.

The Jews' claim to set up a state on occupied Arab lands in Palestine is thus considered illegitimate under international law.

Thanks for all the usual blather, kes. You still didn't address what I wrote. Lord Caradon explicitly said, in the quote I provided, that while Israel needed to return land in exchange for peace with its neighbours, it needn't exchange all the land because the borders prior to the 6 Day War were not, in fact, borders, they were armistice lines from the 1948 war.

You're really good at cutting and pasting, kes. Thinking, not so much. Let me say it another way, in big bold letters, so you'll understand: THE MAN WHO DRAFTED UN RESOLUTION 242 PUBLICLY STATED THAT ISRAEL WAS NOT EXPECTED TO RETURN ALL LANDS IN IT CAPTURED IN 1967. AGAIN: "We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever."

Straight from the horse's mouth. That's good enough for me.

Kessy, I don't get information from Wikipedia, unless it is something about pop culture or the like. I have no idea who writes their entries, so I have no idea if I would trust it. I have read some of the articles they cite, and I would have cited them, had I remembered their exact names and where they were. I was going off the top of my head. If I wasn't, I would have taken a lot longer and have gone into greater detail.

However, you haven't proven anything about 242. You are going off your interpretation, rather than one that examines the history behind that resolution. I believe that it didn't mean all territories based upon the deliberately ambiguous wording. I think that they hoped Israel would withdraw from all territories, but left open the posibility that slight changes could be made in order to establish a secure boundary (which didn't exist prior to the Six Day War).

Oh, and Egypt was obliged to give that peace treaty. As Zak pointed out, Israel needed to return lands in exchange for peace. No peace, no land. Read the entire resolution and you should come to that same conclusion. Sadat seemed to think it was alright, so I don't see why you don't.

I also pointed out clearly that you only quoted a small section of the sematic debate about UN securrity Resolution 242.

The section that you selectively quoted seemed to be a simple ciut and paste job from wikipedia, without the other sections or a link for people to read about the other side of this semantic debate.

=============

robomace is also lying by saying that Egpyt was obliged to give the peace treaty when UN resolutions 242 and 33 8 did not say so in any term.

Nor does both resolutions allow Israel to occupy the the Sinai Peninsular and to build Jewish settlements until 1981 when the resolutions to return the territory was passed in 1967 and rectified in 1973.

robomac, I stand by my statement that you are misleading the people here about the subtance of the 242 and 338 resolutions, in your zeal to defend Israel's defiance of both reolutions.

My points have been clearly stated and you have provided no proof or points of subtance for your case.

robomace, I have refuted your claims that Israel does not need to return all the territories that it occupied in the 1960s.

There can be NO exceptions to any territories occupied by Israel that needs to be returned based on the international agreements that Israel signed.

1] All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed in 1949. < < < "The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

2] "Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

3] "In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces." Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation," ed. Lockman and Beinin.

=====

Even 2] Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution, makes it clear that Israel must withdraw from East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai that were occupied in the 1967 conflict.

“It was from occupied territories that the [r]esolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact...East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I[t] was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted [7].”