Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnderondon";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by abu-afak";p="
First: this post belongs in the Middle East Section.
Perhaps you wanted to avoid knowledgable responses and try and foist Carter's well known biased opinion on us.
|
Er...no. The upper section of the forum seems to receive the most traffic... |
Because the upper section gets the most traffic has nothing to do with where your post belongs, but to do with your Ego.
LOL!
That's pretty cruddy logic dude and would put Every string in this section.
Quote:
Quote:
|
The only state where original Palestinian refugees are given citizenship. (beside Jordan) is Israel. 20% fully enfranchised Arab; not apartheid in any way.
|
Abu, Mr. Carter makes plain (more than once) that he is not refering to Israel. So I`m afraid this is irrelevent.
|
I ALSO addressed the WAR in the territories being mistaken for 'apartheid' (Checkpoints etc)
You Dishonetly left that out. Nasty.
Quote:
Quote:
|
If you had bothered to put this string in the correct section,
|
This seems to bother you, Abu, but I`m afraid there isn`t any hard and fast rules about sections.
|
True, Just COMMON SENSE.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Resolution 242 does NOT call for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders. Not at all. Recognizing Israel's 1967 war was defensive, if pre-emptive, it calls for NEW "Secure and Recognized Borders", Recognizing the old ones.. were not.
|
Yes, you`re quite right, Abu. Res. 242 does not call for a withdrawal to the `67 border. It calls for withdrawal from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". Okay, Israel should do that. Either way works fine.
|
Close. but no Cigar.
It specifically did NOT say "all' or 'the' territories for a reason. In fact, it voted down the language that would return 'all' or 'the' territories Explicitly. See the string... the same reason it called for NEW "Secure and recognized Borders".
Quote:
Quote:
|
ergo, the other Possible solution (3B) is that we really do abide by 242, and Israel get's the Buffers foreseen by that resolution, The Golan and a few small percent of the WB, and the Arabs stop crying about losing that small buffer after trying to wipe out the Jews 3 times from those borders.
|
Leaving aside your interpretation of what 242 foresaw your `3B` is just a re-wording of Carter`s `2B`. Let me remind you:
An unacceptable modification of this choice now being proposed is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them. I think you can quickly see the unacceptability of both of those options.
The only difference is that you have included a hope that the Palestinians will "stop crying" about it and Mr. Carter, more realistically, believes that they wont.
|
I'm not expecting. Just pointing out what Justice IS and what Resolution 242 DOES say.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Sorry boys, War is for keeps, ..
|
That is my fear. Do you wish to stay in a perpetual state of conflict (Carter`s option 2) or would you prefer to seek a peaceful resolution?
|
I would expect as just as in 1945 and many other conflicts the Agressor will accept that he risks losing territory. Especially a three time loser; Unprecedented really, it usually only takes one loss.
Check a political map in 1900 and again in 2000.
Ahh Reality.