Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
montelatici, et al,
Well, I'm sure that I don't have to defend Israel! They are quite capable of defending themselves.
As for being :"Hasbara" --- to be mistaken for one of them is actually a complement (not an insult). I'm quite sure that the Hasbara would want to distance themselves from me. And I am also quite sure that the Fellowship (an NGO) is much better at making a very Favorable and Positive argument in our debate; --- much more so than I. They are generally only half my age and express the Israeli experience much more eloquently. And that's because Israel is a dynamic environment. Israel is not just about the struggle with the Palestinians or the issue of Holy Place and things of religious significance. Its about the beauty and wonder of the land --- fun and entertainment. I'm sure they can say it better than I can.
(COMMENT)Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:
But enough about peace and positive stuff --- let's talk about the ugly side.
More to the point here. I don't know where you get your information. Resolution 242 says what it says. But going to the source, the authors, and drawing out their intention and meaning is as factual as you can get; no matter what book it is in.
Most Respectfully,
R
Ooooo, you played the terrorist card twice in one sentence.So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
Good boy!
(COMMENT)So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.
How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
Ooooo, you played the terrorist card twice in one sentence.So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
Good boy!
(WHAT IS SCARY)
They don't know that kidnapping and murder; attacking citizens with hammers and knifes; using a car to intentionally run-over people; suicide bomb a restaurant; shoot-up the wheelchair bound, the bus full of school children; is wrong.
Most Respectfully,
R
How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
P F Tinmore is 100% correct in this case. It can not happen. It did not happen. It still hasn't happened. And you sure can't use 242 to make it happen.
The intent of 242 is clear:
The States in the area are: Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The requirement that Israel withdraw from territories was a means to an end. It was the means by which a lasting peace with recognized sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and with secure and recognized boundaries be made.
- to establish a just and lasting peace
- termination of all claims or states of belligerency
- recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every STATE in the area
- secure and recognized boundaries for every STATE in the area
Israel, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace treaties which establish that peace, that recognition, integrity, independence and boundaries. Therefore, 242 has been satisfied with respect to the West Bank and Gaza. (Lebanon still has a border dispute with Israel and its seems political events have overtaken the issue with respect to Syria.)
242 has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism. It does not address Palestinian independent nationalism. And it can not be retroactively used to create some sort of new sovereignty at a time and in a place where none existed.
How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
P F Tinmore is 100% correct in this case. It can not happen. It did not happen. It still hasn't happened. And you sure can't use 242 to make it happen.
The intent of 242 is clear:
The States in the area are: Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The requirement that Israel withdraw from territories was a means to an end. It was the means by which a lasting peace with recognized sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and with secure and recognized boundaries be made.
- to establish a just and lasting peace
- termination of all claims or states of belligerency
- recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every STATE in the area
- secure and recognized boundaries for every STATE in the area
Israel, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace treaties which establish that peace, that recognition, integrity, independence and boundaries. Therefore, 242 has been satisfied with respect to the West Bank and Gaza. (Lebanon still has a border dispute with Israel and its seems political events have overtaken the issue with respect to Syria.)
242 has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism. It does not address Palestinian independent nationalism. And it can not be retroactively used to create some sort of new sovereignty at a time and in a place where none existed.
Israel has left Lebanon completely. Unless you're speaking of the 7-mile stretch of land called the Shebaa Farms, that Hezbollah suddenly started to call a part of Lebanon. (The Arabs are never satisfied.)
In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.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.
How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
Would you be? Say you were a Christian living in Haifa, maybe your family owned a citrus farm for several generations and because of the invasion of European Jews your family was forced to flee leaving everything. Would you be satisfied?
How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
P F Tinmore is 100% correct in this case. It can not happen. It did not happen. It still hasn't happened. And you sure can't use 242 to make it happen.
The intent of 242 is clear:
The States in the area are: Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The requirement that Israel withdraw from territories was a means to an end. It was the means by which a lasting peace with recognized sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and with secure and recognized boundaries be made.
- to establish a just and lasting peace
- termination of all claims or states of belligerency
- recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every STATE in the area
- secure and recognized boundaries for every STATE in the area
Israel, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace treaties which establish that peace, that recognition, integrity, independence and boundaries. Therefore, 242 has been satisfied with respect to the West Bank and Gaza. (Lebanon still has a border dispute with Israel and its seems political events have overtaken the issue with respect to Syria.)
242 has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism. It does not address Palestinian independent nationalism. And it can not be retroactively used to create some sort of new sovereignty at a time and in a place where none existed.
Israel has left Lebanon completely. Unless you're speaking of the 7-mile stretch of land called the Shebaa Farms, that Hezbollah suddenly started to call a part of Lebanon. (The Arabs are never satisfied.)
Would you be? Say you were a Christian living in Haifa, maybe your family owned a citrus farm for several generations and because of the invasion of European Jews your family was forced to flee leaving everything. Would you be satisfied?
In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
I've always thought this was an interesting and one-sided application of that principle. How did Jordan acquire territory which was not hers in 1948? The border between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the remaining slice of Palestine was never in dispute, was it? That was a clear border made by agreements and treaty.
So when we apply this principle, isn't it Jordan who can not acquire territory by war? The war conducted against Israel in 1948?
And if Jordan did not acquire that territory in 1948 (because it can't due to the principle that one can't acquire territory by war), then how can Israel have taken it from Jordan in 1967?
Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.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.
How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.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.
How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
Ooooo, you played the terrorist card twice in one sentence.So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
Good boy!
How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
P F Tinmore is 100% correct in this case. It can not happen. It did not happen. It still hasn't happened. And you sure can't use 242 to make it happen.
The intent of 242 is clear:
The States in the area are: Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The requirement that Israel withdraw from territories was a means to an end. It was the means by which a lasting peace with recognized sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and with secure and recognized boundaries be made.
- to establish a just and lasting peace
- termination of all claims or states of belligerency
- recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every STATE in the area
- secure and recognized boundaries for every STATE in the area
Israel, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace treaties which establish that peace, that recognition, integrity, independence and boundaries. Therefore, 242 has been satisfied with respect to the West Bank and Gaza. (Lebanon still has a border dispute with Israel and its seems political events have overtaken the issue with respect to Syria.)
242 has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism. It does not address Palestinian independent nationalism. And it can not be retroactively used to create some sort of new sovereignty at a time and in a place where none existed.
Israel has left Lebanon completely. Unless you're speaking of the 7-mile stretch of land called the Shebaa Farms, that Hezbollah suddenly started to call a part of Lebanon. (The Arabs are never satisfied.)
Would you be? Say you were a Christian living in Haifa, maybe your family owned a citrus farm for several generations and because of the invasion of European Jews your family was forced to flee leaving everything. Would you be satisfied?
montelatici, et al,
Well, I'm sure that I don't have to defend Israel! They are quite capable of defending themselves.
As for being :"Hasbara" --- to be mistaken for one of them is actually a complement (not an insult). I'm quite sure that the Hasbara would want to distance themselves from me. And I am also quite sure that the Fellowship (an NGO) is much better at making a very Favorable and Positive argument in our debate; --- much more so than I. They are generally only half my age and express the Israeli experience much more eloquently. And that's because Israel is a dynamic environment. Israel is not just about the struggle with the Palestinians or the issue of Holy Place and things of religious significance. Its about the beauty and wonder of the land --- fun and entertainment. I'm sure they can say it better than I can.
(COMMENT)Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:
But enough about peace and positive stuff --- let's talk about the ugly side.
More to the point here. I don't know where you get your information. Resolution 242 says what it says. But going to the source, the authors, and drawing out their intention and meaning is as factual as you can get; no matter what book it is in.
Most Respectfully,
R
It's reading comprehension, intentions are confirmed by what was written in English and French. All the Hasbara machinations conflating the word "territories" with something else of their own description, are weak attempts to change the meaning of words.
So, these guys, who did much worse, e.g.attacked Russian built schools educating girls, killing thousands of students, were "freedom fighters" and were supported financially by the U.S. until 9/11, but the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are terrorists. Rocco logic.
