[yonif]

Thanks. I usually don't read the Israel section, as I don't have much time. Please ping me to your posts. I only usually read those threads about Israel that are pinged to me.

[abu afak]

No problem.

It should be noted as it is in the many statements in my string.....

that attempts to include the words 'all' and 'the' before the word 'territories' were specifically rejected by the authors of Resolution 242 (and overall membership of the UN).

The 1949/1967 Lines are not even referred to in the Resolution.

The Resolution was really the First attempt at "land for peace".

It was understood Israel would get an adjustment to the 1967 border (especially the WB).

Hence the phrase "secure and Recognized Boundaries" (New, more defendable boudaries) as opposed to a simple statement calling for a Withdrawal to (the never referred to) 1967 Lines.

Despite recent revisionism, both Syria and the Palestinians REJECTED 242 because they knew Exactly what it meant.
only later accepting going for the revisionist "French [MIS}Translation" 'le territories'.

Israel, in a statement by Abba Eban Accepted immediately.

The Palestinians, in fact, Rejected it categorically several times, only accepting in 1989 in the lead up to the Oslo talks.

242 is the single biggest piece of Revisionism in this Short, Historically speaking, Conflict.

I have made it a specialty and area of study of mine for that reason... and the reaction to the WB settlemments/Sharon/CNN Poll was why I started the string yesterday.