Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen; anotherview
But that doesn't mean "all" territories. It doesn't say "all". Got iy
Resolution 242 further states (in part): "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.."
But then, surely, that doesn't mean "all" states of belligerency, does it?
See? Doesn't that clarify Resolution 242 for everybody? Both sides are living up to the agreement. What's the problem?

You’re right, among the principles 242 set’s out, is a call for for termination of all states of belligerency, violated on numerous occasions by the arab states.

And it calls for negotiating a withdrawl "from territories”, not "all", the result of negotiations prior to the resolutions adoption which recognized Israel would need to retain some territory for defensive reasons.

The Pentagon’s interpritation of "defensive borders" in 74 is below, similar to the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommendation in 68. You’ll note it suggests Israel retains about 60% of the West Bank, returning the rest to Jordan, all of Gaza and chunks of the Sinai, returning the rest to Egypt. If instituted, this plan would have returned well over 80% of the disputed territory while providing secure boundries for Israel.

The Joint Chiefs speaking in 68

The Chiefs made the following specific findings:

"The prominent high ground running north-south through the middle of West Jordan [Judea and Samaria] generally...would provide Israel with a militarily defensible border."

"The commanding territory east of the boundary of 4 June 1967 [the Golan Heights]...overlooks the Galilee area. To provide a defense in-depth, Israel would need a strip about 15 miles wide extending from the border of Lebanon to the border of Jordan."

"By occupying the Gaza Strip, Israel would trade approximately 45 miles of hostile border for eight. Configured as it [was prior to 1967], the strip serve[d] as a salient for introduction of Arab subversion and terrorism and its retention would be to Israel's military advantage."

"To defend the Jerusalem area would require that the boundary of Israel be positioned to the east of the city to provide for the organization of an adequate defensive position."

8 posted on 02/26/2003 2:20:43 PM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: SJackson; anotherview
"You’re right, among the principles 242 set’s out, is a call for for termination of all states of belligerency, violated on numerous occasions by the arab states."

Wrong. Resolution 242 does not call for a termination of "all" states of belligerency. Read the text. It says, "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency...".

It does not say, "Termination of all claims or all states of belligerency...".

I rest my case. But I made it for a reason. And that was to make you think.

If I had 10 pencils and you took all of them and I asked for "a return of pencils taken", how many would you return? Do you realize how silly you would look if you say anything other than 10? Do you think you could return 8 because I didn't ask for "all" of them?

Do you think I will be happy with 8? Is it because you're much bigger than me that you'll decide how many to give me, and I should be happy I got any at all?

14 posted on 02/26/2003 2:44:50 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson