It says 'withdraw from territories" not all the territories. It also recognizes the right for all 'States' to have safe and secure borders. It does not mention Palestine or Palestinian once in the Resolution. Israel was only bound to withdraw to territories that allowed her to have safe and secure borders, and that was something she had to negotiate with Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. The situation has changed but if you want to be correct and truthful then you must understand these points.
Maybe the spotlight is on 'israel' because the zionist crimes of the last hundred years are so dispicable that even thousands and thousands of Jewish people try to fight it's brutal genocide of an indigenous people....
How many Israelis and Palestinians were killed throughout the conflict? Maybe a couple tens of thousands? What about the +400,000 who were genocided in Darfur, as well as the 2 million displaced? What about the 900,000 killed in Rwanda? Nothing was done to prevent that, because the attention was on Israel.
I'm not the one full of omissions, and I have proven that through my inbox reply.
1. Straits of Tiran are international waterways. Blocking them IS against international law, regardless of how much Israel uses them.
2. The 1956 treaty between Egypt and Israel "mandated" the presence of international forces there, and it was agreed that if those forces were to be removed, it would have to be discussed at the UN, but it wasn't done so. You were hoping I wasn't aware of the 1956 treaty, eh?
3. I explained that in the inbox reply, that it was all a defensive move against Syria's constant shelling from Golan. If Mexico were to shell San Diego, how long would it take the US to respond? Israel responds too late, they waited 19 years to do something about it.
"Thus israel reserved the right to maintain sovereignty over the territories"
?????
.....not to mention.........have you actually ever looked at the documented record of the actions of the politicians of israel??? for example their vote every year at the U.N. AGAINST peacefully resolving the situation.......
I do not contradict myself. International law distinguishes between an offensive and a defensive war. It is inadmissible to acquire territory in an offensive war, but when acquiring territory in a defensive war, land can be returned with a peace treaty.
I don't have to say that, it's common sense. Why would you return land acquired in a defensive war if your neighbors are still at war with you? Which is why 242 calls for peace as well rather than just returning territory.
Funny how u call it a 'defensive' war....and the record shows that it was a PRE-EMPTIVE offensive...the history of 'israel' supports this...claiming...that they were scared that Egypt was going to attack...a threat which has been disproven by the accounts of Mossad and IDF officials (of the time)...oh...also...the international community also sees it as an offensive war....
3. Sinai was re-militarized by Egypt, against the Armistice agreement and a threat to Israel (and you deny this, give me evidence that Mossad and IDC officials disproved this)
4. Russian engineers and trainers helped build missile replacements in Eastern Sinai, which could shoot rockets up to Tel-Aviv (more of a need for a pre-emptive strike). The Arabs in the silo fled, but the Russians were taken captive by Israel and then sent back to the USSR.
5. Again, Russian soviets flew spy planes over Israel on the first days of June. They denied it, but USSR military info later approved it.
6. Egypt and Jordan made a "Mutual Defense Pact", which actually was a coordinated aggression pact since Israel attacked pre-emptively, not aggressively.
7. USSR accused Israel of massing troops at the Syria border (which was a lie), and thus Syria took advantage of that and began sending its troops to the Golan Heights.
and 8. Jordan put its entire legion under Egyptian command.
The UN also agreed that Israel was the defender. The USSR tried to table a motion twice to condemn Israel as the aggressor, but they failed.
One more thing: Israel didn't attack Jordan, Jordan attacked Israel, even with 2 warnings to stop. That was an offensive move, was it not? So Israel DOES have legal sovereignty over the West Bank.
now read carefully, i know it's difficult to, but try please.
a defensive war, BY DEFINITION, is defined by legal borders. now, by rule of common sense you must admit that even though the IDF moved into occupy a territory, it was not Israel engaged in defense, for by definition, the defense must take place within legal borders.
So you're saying that the pre-emptive strike was illegitimate because it took place within Egyptian sovereignty? I don't buy it, because the UN later did not condemn Israel as the aggressor. Read my replies to Shakur420.
The U.N. is way too corrupt for me to disagree with Israel for voting against all of their resolutions. Do you know that they refused to investigate the Sri Lanka massacres, but for anything related to Israel, they are happy to do so? The U.N. is hypocritical, they were pretty much hijacked by their Arab allies to create an "anti-Israel resolution mill" where every month they make another resolution condemning Israel.
Secondly, when an occupying forse is under threat of war within the definition of defense, the FIRST THING that OCCUPYING force is responsible for is WITHDRAWAL. unless it is interested in death...
but you're absolutely right... it's the U.N that's corrupt. you are driving your brothers to weeping...
are you aware of the tenets of Zionism? it IS and always WILL BE Israel that refuses to negotiate, only recognise Palestinians as target practice, and rejects peace.
Oh, so Oslo didn't happen? What about Camp David 2000? Or the previous agreements, like Camp David 1979, or the peace treaty with Jordan in 1994? Did none of them exist? Am I just imagining that Israel attempted to make peace in the past? Let's see who rejects peace more.
At Camp David 2000, Israel offered Arafat a state with all of Gaza and Most of the West Bank with a capitol in East Jerusalem. I'll finish this in another comment
6. you OMIT the countless mentions by israeli officials that there was NO PERCEIVED THREAT.....by israelis OR Americans
officials such as Lyndon Johnson, Gen Meir Amit (MOSSAD), Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin, etc.
.....like I said.......DO YOUR HOMEWORK......my facts come are supported by scholarly sources, (israeli) government websites, revered (israeli) historians and (israeli) news.......
I'm forwarding you links/references in a private message as I can't post them here....
6. I wrote about this in my inbox reply. What the UN said was clear, regardless of your propaganda. But that's not the most important thing. The UN worded Resolution 242 very well to show that Israel wasn't the aggressor. If it was, then the resolution would call solely for Israel to withdraw from the territories. Don't forget Israel's offer to return the land for peace, and the Arabs refused in Khartoum, but again, you don't want people to know that, right?
Try maybe listening to Abba Eban's 6 Day War speeches, and finding some 'Real' scholarly works, unless you want to remain a propagandist. So like I said, finish your homework, and then come back to me.
...Arafat then called the prince of Saudi Arabia and asked for advice. The prince said that this was the greatest thing Arafat could do for his people. The next day, Arafat refused the offer, made NO counter-offer, and 2 months later began the long planned Second Intifada. So tell me, is Israel the one rejecting peace?
4.your logic, arguing that it was a 'defensive' war is refuted by the U.N. and international consensus by the fact that israel has been instructed to withdraw from territories acquired......i.e. it WAS NOT DEFENSIVE.....lol....
5.'Oslo' and 'Camp David' 2000 were offers of a 'Bantustan' government.....i.e. puppet politicians for an israeli-controlled state.....offering israeli control of:
4. False. Just plain wrong. I don't think you've ever read all of Resolution 242. Israel is not instructed to unilaterally withdraw from anything. The resolution requires all belligerents to make peace and then negotiate from there, where Israel will need to return most of the conquered territory WITH a peace treaty in place. But what happened at Khartoum?????
5. Well, I know the history so this lie won't work on me. Arafat agreed to end all of the terrorism and resolve issues through negotiations, not terrorism. Israel offered between 1993-98 to turn Areas B and C all into Area A, under Palestinian sovereignty. This explains the borders issue.
They had elections, Arafat was elected. Israel had nothing to do with it.
Taxes were divided between Israel and the PA. And lets not forget the millions of shekels Israel gave the PA, which was used for terror
Israel had no responsibility in government salaries, Arafat was in charge of managing that..
And yes, the right of return, the biggest Arab invention. There is not right of return, nor would it ever be possible to give 5 million Palestinians a right of return. They need to be resettled, because Israel can't let them back inside.
So it WAS an offer of peace, but the propaganda you give in to just erases that from your head. Arafat was happy to sign the papers and return to the terror war.
Same with Camp David 2000, you want to think it's not a peace offer because you like to demonize Israel rather than live in peace with it. Arafat was offered a state on ALL of Gaza and Most of the West Bank, as well as a Capitol in East Jerusalem. Arafat wasn't sure what to do, so he called the Prince of Saudi Arabia and asked him. The Prince said it was the greatest thing he could do for the Palestinians. Arafat later refused the offer, and the Prince highly condemned it.
Its not that complicated. In a nutshell it just says that they "should" move out of the west bank, not that they HAVE to
JLBProductions1 1 month ago
It says 'withdraw from territories" not all the territories. It also recognizes the right for all 'States' to have safe and secure borders. It does not mention Palestine or Palestinian once in the Resolution. Israel was only bound to withdraw to territories that allowed her to have safe and secure borders, and that was something she had to negotiate with Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. The situation has changed but if you want to be correct and truthful then you must understand these points.
leormann 1 month ago
Maybe the spotlight is on 'israel' because the zionist crimes of the last hundred years are so dispicable that even thousands and thousands of Jewish people try to fight it's brutal genocide of an indigenous people....
shakur420 2 years ago
How many Israelis and Palestinians were killed throughout the conflict? Maybe a couple tens of thousands? What about the +400,000 who were genocided in Darfur, as well as the 2 million displaced? What about the 900,000 killed in Rwanda? Nothing was done to prevent that, because the attention was on Israel.
OBZ 2 years ago
@OBZ
......lol.....
your 'timeline' is conveniently full of omissions.....
1. blocking the Straits was not against international LAW, rather, a pretext for war (israel had barely used the passage way for 2 years)
2.U.N. forces in the Sinai were VOLUNTARY (on Egypt's part) and their departure was a defensive move by Egypt
3. Constant attacks on Syria (by israel) provoked Egypt and Jordan to prepare to defend Syria. (the attacks coming from Syria were provoked by israel)
shakur420 2 years ago
I'm not the one full of omissions, and I have proven that through my inbox reply.
1. Straits of Tiran are international waterways. Blocking them IS against international law, regardless of how much Israel uses them.
2. The 1956 treaty between Egypt and Israel "mandated" the presence of international forces there, and it was agreed that if those forces were to be removed, it would have to be discussed at the UN, but it wasn't done so. You were hoping I wasn't aware of the 1956 treaty, eh?
OBZ 2 years ago
3. I explained that in the inbox reply, that it was all a defensive move against Syria's constant shelling from Golan. If Mexico were to shell San Diego, how long would it take the US to respond? Israel responds too late, they waited 19 years to do something about it.
OBZ 2 years ago
You forgot to mention something else:
242 also calls for "termination of all claims of belligerency... free from threats or acts of force"
But that was not possible after the leaders of 8 Arab nations went to Khartoum in 1967 and decided:
No negotiations with Israel
No Recognition of Israel
No peace with Israel
Thus Israel reserved the right to maintain sovereignty over the territories.
With a serious peace partner, Israel will return Land, as it did with Egypt and Jordan (1979 and 1994)
OBZ 2 years ago
you contradict yourself........
"termination of all claims of belligerency"
and then you state........
"Thus israel reserved the right to maintain sovereignty over the territories"
?????
.....not to mention.........have you actually ever looked at the documented record of the actions of the politicians of israel??? for example their vote every year at the U.N. AGAINST peacefully resolving the situation.......
shakur420 2 years ago
I do not contradict myself. International law distinguishes between an offensive and a defensive war. It is inadmissible to acquire territory in an offensive war, but when acquiring territory in a defensive war, land can be returned with a peace treaty.
I don't have to say that, it's common sense. Why would you return land acquired in a defensive war if your neighbors are still at war with you? Which is why 242 calls for peace as well rather than just returning territory.
OBZ 2 years ago
Funny how u call it a 'defensive' war....and the record shows that it was a PRE-EMPTIVE offensive...the history of 'israel' supports this...claiming...that they were scared that Egypt was going to attack...a threat which has been disproven by the accounts of Mossad and IDF officials (of the time)...oh...also...the international community also sees it as an offensive war....
...do ur homework before u come to school...
shakur420 2 years ago
Go ahead, intimidate me, you know you're just doing that because you're desperate.
You said it well, it started with a PRE-EMPTIVE attack. Here's 8 reasons why it was a legitimate defensive attack:
1. On May 15th ov '67, Egypt blockaded the straits of Tiran, blocking the waterway (against international law, blocking another nation's waterway.
2. Egypt demanded that all peacekeeping forces in Sinai after the Sinai Campain (1956) leave, contrary to the 1956 Armistice Agreement.
to be continued..
OBZ 2 years ago
3. Sinai was re-militarized by Egypt, against the Armistice agreement and a threat to Israel (and you deny this, give me evidence that Mossad and IDC officials disproved this)
4. Russian engineers and trainers helped build missile replacements in Eastern Sinai, which could shoot rockets up to Tel-Aviv (more of a need for a pre-emptive strike). The Arabs in the silo fled, but the Russians were taken captive by Israel and then sent back to the USSR.
to be continued..
OBZ 2 years ago
5. Again, Russian soviets flew spy planes over Israel on the first days of June. They denied it, but USSR military info later approved it.
6. Egypt and Jordan made a "Mutual Defense Pact", which actually was a coordinated aggression pact since Israel attacked pre-emptively, not aggressively.
7. USSR accused Israel of massing troops at the Syria border (which was a lie), and thus Syria took advantage of that and began sending its troops to the Golan Heights.
OBZ 2 years ago
and 8. Jordan put its entire legion under Egyptian command.
The UN also agreed that Israel was the defender. The USSR tried to table a motion twice to condemn Israel as the aggressor, but they failed.
One more thing: Israel didn't attack Jordan, Jordan attacked Israel, even with 2 warnings to stop. That was an offensive move, was it not? So Israel DOES have legal sovereignty over the West Bank.
Oh, did your dog eat your homework?
OBZ 2 years ago
Peace from Israels Terrorism!
there is one condition to what you say,
now read carefully, i know it's difficult to, but try please.
a defensive war, BY DEFINITION, is defined by legal borders. now, by rule of common sense you must admit that even though the IDF moved into occupy a territory, it was not Israel engaged in defense, for by definition, the defense must take place within legal borders.
guyusbaltaar 2 years ago
So you're saying that the pre-emptive strike was illegitimate because it took place within Egyptian sovereignty? I don't buy it, because the UN later did not condemn Israel as the aggressor. Read my replies to Shakur420.
OBZ 2 years ago
The U.N. is way too corrupt for me to disagree with Israel for voting against all of their resolutions. Do you know that they refused to investigate the Sri Lanka massacres, but for anything related to Israel, they are happy to do so? The U.N. is hypocritical, they were pretty much hijacked by their Arab allies to create an "anti-Israel resolution mill" where every month they make another resolution condemning Israel.
watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU
Pure hypocrisy.
OBZ 2 years ago
Secondly, when an occupying forse is under threat of war within the definition of defense, the FIRST THING that OCCUPYING force is responsible for is WITHDRAWAL. unless it is interested in death...
but you're absolutely right... it's the U.N that's corrupt. you are driving your brothers to weeping...
LOOK AT YOURSELF!!!
guyusbaltaar 2 years ago
Umm... what was Israel occupying???
OBZ 2 years ago
You have GOT to be kidding me!!!
are you aware of the tenets of Zionism? it IS and always WILL BE Israel that refuses to negotiate, only recognise Palestinians as target practice, and rejects peace.
THERE CAN BE NO PALESTINIAN STATE!!!
Don't you get it!??!?!?!??!!
why do you side with them? WHY!?!?!
guyusbaltaar 2 years ago
Oh, so Oslo didn't happen? What about Camp David 2000? Or the previous agreements, like Camp David 1979, or the peace treaty with Jordan in 1994? Did none of them exist? Am I just imagining that Israel attempted to make peace in the past? Let's see who rejects peace more.
At Camp David 2000, Israel offered Arafat a state with all of Gaza and Most of the West Bank with a capitol in East Jerusalem. I'll finish this in another comment
OBZ 2 years ago
6. you OMIT the countless mentions by israeli officials that there was NO PERCEIVED THREAT.....by israelis OR Americans
officials such as Lyndon Johnson, Gen Meir Amit (MOSSAD), Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin, etc.
.....like I said.......DO YOUR HOMEWORK......my facts come are supported by scholarly sources, (israeli) government websites, revered (israeli) historians and (israeli) news.......
I'm forwarding you links/references in a private message as I can't post them here....
shakur420 2 years ago
6. I wrote about this in my inbox reply. What the UN said was clear, regardless of your propaganda. But that's not the most important thing. The UN worded Resolution 242 very well to show that Israel wasn't the aggressor. If it was, then the resolution would call solely for Israel to withdraw from the territories. Don't forget Israel's offer to return the land for peace, and the Arabs refused in Khartoum, but again, you don't want people to know that, right?
OBZ 2 years ago
Try maybe listening to Abba Eban's 6 Day War speeches, and finding some 'Real' scholarly works, unless you want to remain a propagandist. So like I said, finish your homework, and then come back to me.
OBZ 2 years ago
...Arafat then called the prince of Saudi Arabia and asked for advice. The prince said that this was the greatest thing Arafat could do for his people. The next day, Arafat refused the offer, made NO counter-offer, and 2 months later began the long planned Second Intifada. So tell me, is Israel the one rejecting peace?
OBZ 2 years ago
4.your logic, arguing that it was a 'defensive' war is refuted by the U.N. and international consensus by the fact that israel has been instructed to withdraw from territories acquired......i.e. it WAS NOT DEFENSIVE.....lol....
5.'Oslo' and 'Camp David' 2000 were offers of a 'Bantustan' government.....i.e. puppet politicians for an israeli-controlled state.....offering israeli control of:
borders
elections
taxes
government slaries
NO RIGHT OF RETURN
etc.
NOT an 'offer of peace'.....lol..
shakur420 2 years ago
4. False. Just plain wrong. I don't think you've ever read all of Resolution 242. Israel is not instructed to unilaterally withdraw from anything. The resolution requires all belligerents to make peace and then negotiate from there, where Israel will need to return most of the conquered territory WITH a peace treaty in place. But what happened at Khartoum?????
OBZ 2 years ago
5. Well, I know the history so this lie won't work on me. Arafat agreed to end all of the terrorism and resolve issues through negotiations, not terrorism. Israel offered between 1993-98 to turn Areas B and C all into Area A, under Palestinian sovereignty. This explains the borders issue.
They had elections, Arafat was elected. Israel had nothing to do with it.
Taxes were divided between Israel and the PA. And lets not forget the millions of shekels Israel gave the PA, which was used for terror
OBZ 2 years ago
Israel had no responsibility in government salaries, Arafat was in charge of managing that..
And yes, the right of return, the biggest Arab invention. There is not right of return, nor would it ever be possible to give 5 million Palestinians a right of return. They need to be resettled, because Israel can't let them back inside.
So it WAS an offer of peace, but the propaganda you give in to just erases that from your head. Arafat was happy to sign the papers and return to the terror war.
OBZ 2 years ago
Same with Camp David 2000, you want to think it's not a peace offer because you like to demonize Israel rather than live in peace with it. Arafat was offered a state on ALL of Gaza and Most of the West Bank, as well as a Capitol in East Jerusalem. Arafat wasn't sure what to do, so he called the Prince of Saudi Arabia and asked him. The Prince said it was the greatest thing he could do for the Palestinians. Arafat later refused the offer, and the Prince highly condemned it.
OBZ 2 years ago