ISA Arrests Terrorist Sniper Trying Use Humanitarian Permit to Attack IDF Soldiers

[P F Tinmore]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN Security Council resolution 242

•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 recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force;


Now Israel has already managed to do this with 2 of its neighbours, and the outcome was mutually beneficial. In fact in one case the USA had to promise monetary aid in the $billions before the Islamic nation would sign.

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Everybody, except Israel of course, already had international borders.

I see that English is not your first language it states " SECURE AND RECOGNISED BORDERS". That means the borders don't exist in full and have to be negotiated.

Israel has international borders with Egypt and Jordan, both negotiated and agreed. In both cases Israel offered the return of gaza and the west bank as part of the deal. Egypt and Jordan both told Israel that the areas were now their responsibility and washed their hands of them. Do you hink Egypt and Jordan knew something that you dont

So, Israel negotiated Palestinian borders with Egypt and Jordan?

Interesting legal concept. Israel is claiming borders on land that Israel agreed was Palestine.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Israel's meat head approach to the conflict is biting it on the ass."

There is no talking to mad dogs like the Palestinians.

Even their Egyptian neighbors fence them off to keep their insanity from spreading.

The Israelis are doing just fine in their handling of these lunatics.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...Israel's meat head approach to the conflict is biting it on the ass."

There is no talking to mad dogs like the Palestinians.

Even their Egyptian neighbors fence them off to keep their insanity from spreading.

The Israelis are doing just fine in their handling of these lunatics.

Not really. Every time Israel does something stupid its legitimacy takes a hit on the world stage.

Lebanon
Cast Lead
The flotilla
The siege on Gaza
Settlements

Israel regularly shoots itself in the foot with its meat head approach to the conflict.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

"...Israel's meat head approach to the conflict is biting it on the ass."

There is no talking to mad dogs like the Palestinians.

Even their Egyptian neighbors fence them off to keep their insanity from spreading.

The Israelis are doing just fine in their handling of these lunatics.

Not really. Every time Israel does something stupid its legitimacy takes a hit on the world stage.

Lebanon
Cast Lead
The flotilla
The siege on Gaza
Settlements

Israel regularly shoots itself in the foot with its meat head approach to the conflict.

You regularly shoot yourself in the foot with your ignorance. Stay though, as you are brilliant entertainment. Do you sing as well?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

Again, a false premise. There was no State of Palestine in 1947 or 1948. In fact there was no State of Palestine until 1988. The borders were based on partitions established by the decisions of the two principle mandatory powers.

Palestine was a Mandate territory, not a country.

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Everybody, except Israel of course, already had international borders.

I see that English is not your first language it states " SECURE AND RECOGNISED BORDERS". That means the borders don't exist in full and have to be negotiated.

Israel has international borders with Egypt and Jordan, both negotiated and agreed. In both cases Israel offered the return of gaza and the west bank as part of the deal. Egypt and Jordan both told Israel that the areas were now their responsibility and washed their hands of them. Do you hink Egypt and Jordan knew something that you dont

So, Israel negotiated Palestinian borders with Egypt and Jordan?

Interesting legal concept. Israel is claiming borders on land that Israel agreed was Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Israel negotiated Treaties, which included borders, with Egypt and Jordan based on the fact that they were "states" that occupied territories inside the former mandate territory. Egypt was an Occupation Power over the Gaza Strip and Jordan was an Occupation Power over the West Bank. Palestine was not a "state" and so had no standing to negotiate a treaty. The Palestinians had rejected their option to create another Arab State; a position taken at the direction of the Arab League.

Yes it is a interesting legal concept. Interesting in that Palestine (a promotional legal fallacy which did not exist) was a fictitious entity having no authority and competence to enter into a treaty arrangement.

The borders negotiated by Treaty (Law) between Israel and the warring parties (Egypt and Jordan) are what they are; fully recognized and on file with the nations of the world in the United Nations Treaty Collection (UNTC). This has been discussed many, many times over the last couple of years, but most recently in Posting #278 (permalink) in the discussion Thread "No 'Deals' With Israel, Unless We Get Everything We Want."

• UNTC Registry No. 17813 EGYPT and ISRAEL Page 100 (Eng Fr Arabic Hebrew) Maps start on Page 178
  
  • Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979

• UNTC Registry No 35325 State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
  • Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994

I think our friend "Phoenall's" English is just fine. I think Phoenall nailed it solidly.

Now it is true that Armistice Lines are not true borders, but the Rule of Law protecting the Armistice Lines and Borders are the same.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

SOURCE: Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations constitutes an authoritative elaboration of the principles contained in the Charter. The General Assembly confirmed the intrinsic link between these principles and the rule of law at the international level, by expressing the conviction that this Declaration “would contribute to the strengthening of world peace and constitute a landmark in the development of international law and of relations among States, in promoting the rule of law among nations and particularly the universal application of the principles embodied in the Charter.” The Declaration identifies seven principles, namely:

(a) The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;
(b) The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered;
(c) The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter;
(d) The duty of States to co-operate with one another in accordance with the Charter;
(e) The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples;
(f) The principle of sovereign equality of States; and
(g) The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter.​

SOURCE: GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...Israel's meat head approach to the conflict is biting it on the ass."

There is no talking to mad dogs like the Palestinians.

Even their Egyptian neighbors fence them off to keep their insanity from spreading.

The Israelis are doing just fine in their handling of these lunatics.

Not really. Every time Israel does something stupid its legitimacy takes a hit on the world stage.

Lebanon
Cast Lead
The flotilla
The siege on Gaza
Settlements

Israel regularly shoots itself in the foot with its meat head approach to the conflict.

Tinny, you seem to be operating under the impression that Israel is overly worried about its image on the world stage.

Given the extreme pro-Arab bias in the UN General Assembly, it seems likely that although the Israelis certainly do what they can to cultivate favorable world opinion, they also don't worry about it overly much, given their survival needs.

Consequently, it's "meat head approach" focuses far more upon what is necessary to its survival rather than optional and secondary considerations such as global public opinion.

Can't say as I blame 'em one little bit for taking such a common-sense view of things.

They are alive... and they are in control... which, after all this time, and overcoming tremendous odds early-on, is sufficient to be considered 'doing just fine' in such a context.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians had rejected their option to create another Arab State;...

You keep telling that lie.

The Palestinians did not reject "a state" they rejected giving over half of their country to foreigners.

They still have the same right to their state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

The Palestinians were not a party to those agreements.

The armistice lines run through Palestine (Palestine on both sides of the lines) so I don't see how the Palestinians can violate those lines.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no talking to mad dogs like the Palestinians.

Even their Egyptian neighbors fence them off to keep their insanity from spreading.

The Israelis are doing just fine in their handling of these lunatics.

Not really. Every time Israel does something stupid its legitimacy takes a hit on the world stage.

Lebanon
Cast Lead
The flotilla
The siege on Gaza
Settlements

Israel regularly shoots itself in the foot with its meat head approach to the conflict.

Tinny, you seem to be operating under the impression that Israel is overly worried about its image on the world stage.

Given the extreme pro-Arab bias in the UN General Assembly, it seems likely that although the Israelis certainly do what they can to cultivate favorable world opinion, they also don't worry about it overly much, given their survival needs.

Consequently, it's "meat head approach" focuses far more upon what is necessary to its survival rather than optional and secondary considerations such as global public opinion.

Can't say as I blame 'em one little bit for taking such a common-sense view of things.

They are alive... and they are in control... which, after all this time, and overcoming tremendous odds early-on, is sufficient to be considered 'doing just fine' in such a context.

Israel is pumping considerable resources into combating the BDS movement.

They seem to be more concerned than you.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

They rejected the option to participate in the creation of the "Arab State" in accordance with the Partition Plan, and -- instead --- choose the path of genocide against the Jewish People who did opt to proceed with the plan.

The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

6. The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom”. The Subsequent communication of 6 February to the Secretary-General from the representative of the Arab Higher Committee set forth the following conclusions of the Arab Higher Committee Delegation:

“a. The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.

“b. The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power or group of powers to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense by force.

c. It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said commission.

d. The United Nations or its commission should not be misled to believe that its efforts in the partition plan will meet with any success. It will be far better for the eclipsed prestige of this organization not to start on this adventure.

e. The United Nations prestige will be better served by abandoning, not enforcing such an injustice.

f. The determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.

g. The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.​

“The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out – man women and child."​

SOURCE: A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

The Palestinians had rejected their option to create another Arab State;...

You keep telling that lie.

The Palestinians did not reject "a state" they rejected giving over half of their country to foreigners.

They still have the same right to their state.

(COMMENT)

Neither the UN or the Mandatory had taken any rights away from the Hostile Arab Palestinian, openly declaring genocide in opposition to the establishment of an Arab State, a Jewish State, and the internationalization of Jerusalem; as outlined in the Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine, (A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947). In fact, the Hostile Arab Palestinians retained that option until Novemeber, 1988, WHEN:

With the uprising, with the escalation of the revolutionary struggle and with the accumulation of revolutionary experience wherever the struggle is in progress, the Palestinian conjuncture reaches a sharp historical turning point. The Palestinian Arab people asserts once more its inalienable rights and its demand to exercise those rights in its Palestinian homeland.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.​

SOURCE:

• A/43/827 S/2027 18 November 1988
• About Palestine (Declaration), Permanent Observer Mission, State of Palestine

The Palestinians have exercised their right. They have declared their independence. Now it is time for them to their obligation to live in peace.

As far as "borders" go, the generalized key factors are:

Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt).
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Everybody, except Israel of course, already had international borders.

I see that English is not your first language it states " SECURE AND RECOGNISED BORDERS". That means the borders don't exist in full and have to be negotiated.

Israel has international borders with Egypt and Jordan, both negotiated and agreed. In both cases Israel offered the return of gaza and the west bank as part of the deal. Egypt and Jordan both told Israel that the areas were now their responsibility and washed their hands of them. Do you hink Egypt and Jordan knew something that you dont

So, Israel negotiated Palestinian borders with Egypt and Jordan?

Interesting legal concept. Israel is claiming borders on land that Israel agreed was Palestine.

At the time of the negotiations it was Egyptian and Jordanian land, so the borders are legally binding. But maybe a look at the map will show you that even going back to the '67 ceasefire lines Israel still has borders with Egypt and Jordan. Seems that you have not educated yourself on your chosen subject, and rely on Islamic blood libels and LIES like all NAZI JEW HATERS.

Don't forget that Palestine has no legal existence until UN res 242 is implemented in full.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I would like to draw your attention to the real issue on borders.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

The Palestinians were not a party to those agreements.

The armistice lines run through Palestine (Palestine on both sides of the lines) so I don't see how the Palestinians can violate those lines.

(COMMENT)

The occupation of any territory serves as a form of insurance against the the nature of those that are occupied.

There are two types of Hostile Palestinians. There are:

Those that believe [extremely Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)] the entire expanse of the remaining former Mandate of Palestine is part of a fictitious State of Palestine. These are the HoAP that covenant the Palestinian National Charter, with respect to:

• Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
  
• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
  
• Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and to self-determination after the completion of the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.

Then there are those that are somewhat more authentic and rational in the approach to the issue (NAD-PLO) of territorial control and borders.

• "Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so."
• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

The Armistice Lines do not separate Israel from Palestine. The Armistice Lines separated the warring states; Israel from Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians had rejected their option to create another Arab State;...

You keep telling that lie.

The Palestinians did not reject "a state" they rejected giving over half of their country to foreigners.

They still have the same right to their state.

How could they object when in law they did not have a country to lose, and still don't to this day. The law on this is simple, until they agree with Israel recognised and secure borders they exist only as an authority with no legal rights. That is their only right according to the UN charter and res 242

 

[Phoenall]

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

The Palestinians were not a party to those agreements.

The armistice lines run through Palestine (Palestine on both sides of the lines) so I don't see how the Palestinians can violate those lines.

Then they have no legal right to exist as a state until they agree to those agreements. Of course it is Palestine on both sides of the ceasefire lines as Israel is also part of Palestine, so by your criteria Israel can take as much land as they want.

Or are you referring to the PLO charter definition of Palestine

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit

Meaning no land for Israel no matter what the UN says, isn't that right

 

[Phoenall]

Palestine was attacked a hundred years ago and they are still defending their country.

Incorrect.

Palestine did not exist one hundred years ago as an organized and autonomous polity.

It was, indeed, subjected to considerable immigration by the Jews of Europe and the Russias.

But it wasn't attacked... melodramatic protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

They aren't defending their country... they have no country to defend, and never did.

They are trying to hold onto land, and failing miserably.

Not true. Palestine had defined international borders, a legally recognized nationality, and citizens before the inception of the mandate.

YES and until 1964 it was the Jews, unless you can produce a link that states Palestine was a nation with defined borders, a recognised nationality and citizens with a ruling body and a government

 

[Phoenall]

"...Not true. Palestine had defined international borders, a legally recognized nationality, and citizens before the inception of the mandate."

How can that be?

Was not Palestine merely a former province of the Ottoman Empire, in receivership?

It was but international treaties that were signed before the mandate changed all that.

Britain was assigned to the already existing Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice to its citizens.

What treaties would they be then, provide the evidence

 

[Phoenall]

It was but international treaties that were signed before the mandate changed all that.

Britain was assigned to the already existing Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice to its citizens.

What international treaties were those?

Have you not told us in the past that External Powers have no business deciding the autonomy and fate of Palestine?

If that is true, then...

Is it not also true that External Powers have no business CREATING something called Palestine?

You can't have it both ways (external authority OK for some things but not for others).

Henceforth, Palestinian nationality was first founded, according to international law, on 6 August 1924. And “treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date.”139 The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from the angle of international law.140 Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.141 Likewise, on 6 August 1924, for the first time ever, international law certified the birth of the ‘Palestinian people’ as distinct from all other peoples.

Among its twenty-seven articles, the 1925 Citizenship Order had three key provisions that shaped the future of Palestine’s inhabitants. One relates to the automatic change of the inhabitants’ nationality from Ottoman subjects into Palestinian citizens.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

So you are now saying that a peace treaty that does not even mention Palestine between Turkey on one side and Great Britain, Greece, France et al. Here is the entry from the E.B.

Treaty of Lausanne, (1923), final treaty concluding World War I. It was signed by representatives of Turkey (successor to the Ottoman Empire) on one side and by Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) on the other. The treaty was signed at Lausanne, Switz., on July 24, 1923, after a seven-month conference.

The treaty recognized the boundaries of the modern state of Turkey. Turkey made no claim to its former Arab provinces and recognized British possession of Cyprus and Italian possession of the Dodecanese. The Allies dropped their demands of autonomy for Turkish Kurdistan and Turkish cession of territory to Armenia, abandoned claims to spheres of influence in Turkey, and imposed no controls over Turkey’s finances or armed forces. The Turkish straits between the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea were declared open to all shipping.


Wikipedia has this to say

Borders[edit]





Adakale Island in River Danube was totally forgotten during the peace talks at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, which allowed it to remain a de jure Turkish territory and the Ottoman Sultan's private possession until the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 (de facto until Romania unilaterally declared its sovereignty on the island in 1919 and further strengthened this claim with the Treaty of Trianon in 1920.)[10]
The treaty delimited the boundaries of Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey; formally ceded all Turkish claims on the Dodecanese Islands (Article 15); Cyprus (Article 20);[11] Egypt and Sudan (Article 17); Syria and Iraq (Article 3); and (along with the Treaty of Ankara) settled the boundaries of the latter two nations.[1]

The territories to the south of Syria and Iraq on the Arabian Peninsula which still remained under Turkish control when the Armistice of Mudros was signed on 30 October 1918 were not explicitly identified in the text of the treaty. However, the definition of Turkey's southern border in Article 3 also meant that Turkey officially ceded them. These territories included Yemen, Asir and parts of Hejaz like the city of Medina. They were held by Turkish forces until 23 January 1919.[12][13]

Turkey officially ceded Adakale Island in River Danube to Romania with Articles 25 and 26 of the Treaty of Lausanne; by formally recognizing the related provisions in the Treaty of Trianon of 1920.[1][10]

Turkey also renounced its privileges in Libya which were defined by Article 10 of the Treaty of Ouchy in 1912 (per Article 22 of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.)[1]


Why do you LIE when you know the truth is just a click away

 

[Phoenall]

Are you saying that the Palestinians went to Europe a hundred years ago and attacked the Zionists?

Not quite, but they did go to medina in 627 and wiped out a Jewish tribe. Have you heard of that first Islamic genocide when their holy prophet raped pre-pubescent girls on the ground were their fathers had been hacked to pieces.

As the Koran says

5:60 Say (O Muhammad to the people of the Scripture): "Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allah and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Taghut (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hellfire), and far more astray from the Right Path."

and this from the hadiths

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews." -- Sahih Muslim 6985

Now do be a good little NAZI and find details of the Jews declaring war on the muslims ?

Not quite, but they did go to medina in 627 and wiped out a Jewish tribe.

The Palestinians did that?

Oh my.

Define Palestinian first and see what you come up with ?

 

[Phoenall]

It means that Israel has won no territory and Palestine's international borders are still valid.

Still telling that LIE even after being told that there are no international borders of Palestine. The facts are entrenched in 242 that say the borders must be negotiated before they become legally binding. The Palestinians can not decide to accept what they have already denied when it suits them. Nor can they make threats regarding what Israel must put in place before they will talk about peace talks. Time for the UN to make demands of the Palestinians to settle the matter once and for all.

For the record Israel has offered to relinquish their hold on the territory in return for peace every year since 1967. The best offer they received was 98% of the land returned with a swap for the other 2% and Arafat the fag turned it down out of hand.

The facts are entrenched in 242 that say the borders must be negotiated before they become legally binding.

Where does it say that?

Here
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;

and here
1. Affirms that the fulfilment 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 Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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;

 

[Phoenall]

Where does it say that?

BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN Security Council resolution 242

•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 recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force;


Now Israel has already managed to do this with 2 of its neighbours, and the outcome was mutually beneficial. In fact in one case the USA had to promise monetary aid in the $billions before the Islamic nation would sign.

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Everybody, except Israel of course, already had international borders.

Pakistan disn't, bangla desh didn't in fact many Islamic nations still don't have borders because they fight over them all the time.

But Israel negotiated its borders with Egypt and Jordan to everyone mutual benefit