Thread: Resolution 242; What it REALLY means

Originally Posted by klipkap

I know this is off-topic but I have chosen to do so in an attempt to bring some order and honesty to this thread.

It is time to put Beletesri’s dishonest debating style to the sword. As an illustration of what I mean by this, I am going to provide my quote, his rebuttal, and then his conclusion of his glorious victory on a particular topic. ......

Tho I have cut about 60% of your Ramling Diatribe THIS Time..

It's me who provides fully contextually and recounted quotes, and not letting you Slip and Slide on to your next Diatribe.

That's why I'm so happy with the Numbered points. They can be answered and, and noticed if dropped. While you *EDIT* take issue with My tactics?!

Which is in fact what you had to do, drop, them/1-7.... in favor of your usual... *EDIT*.. or just reattempt/rephrase what I already answered numerous times.

Classic, on the last page was you asking for legal 'Precedents' for Israel's creation (or Else!).. when in fact there is not much for state craft after the break of a gigantic 400 year old Empire at the dawn of International bodies in the post WW1 age.

I did point out the relatively STRONG underpinnings for Israel vs other states (ie, Jordan, Iraq, etc), and rebut numerous other Red Herrings such as 'Vast' Israel.
ALL unanswered in return.
Not to mention my Thrice stated answer and thrown back point that the vast majority of the Refugees are the Result of the Arab Started War, Not the partition/creation of Israel/Res 181.

Even more classic of KK.. once again we have lots of text from him, but all New text and insinuation about Tactics.. when it's ME sticking with His numbers and points and defeating them... and even having to replay them so he doesn't slip and slide.

But, alas, there's no stopping your next Indignant anti-zio ramble - obscuring and trying to somehow restate/VENT in a way that hasn'ty already been rebutted.. again and again and again.

Dear posters:

I've spent a considerable degree of time cleaning this thread. If you cannot focus on the topic instead of attacking each other racially and personally, I will close this thread.

Are we clear?

Originally Posted by catzmeow

Dear posters:

I've spent a considerable degree of time cleaning this thread. If you cannot focus on the topic instead of attacking each other racially and personally, I will close this thread.

Are we clear?

Did you know that "Klipkap" and "beleserti" are the same people?

Did you know that they are putting on a fake posting show?

I am sure that you did - BUT is this standard practice in this forum? People talking to themselves?

This is not correct information, Fool. I've checked their IP addresses.

Originally Posted by klipkap

Oh you bet, there is a lot more. I would like to break your response up into three issues to make it more manageable. [And yes, I did notice your weaselling about your statement that the Arabs got 99% of the Ottoman empire]

1) That the Zionists are peace lovers who never took anything from anyone [Done]
2) That the Arabs were responsible for the Palestinian refugees because they started the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and
3) The challenge that I document Arab attempts at peace since 1948

I will leave issues 2 and 3 for a later date.

2) That the Arabs were responsible for the Palestinian refugees because they started the 1948 Arab-Israeli war

One would have thought that this myth did not need to be refuted because the logic flaw is so obvious. Nonetheless it is a surprisingly common myth, largely because of one of the standard myth tactics – “If you repeat it often enough people might become comfortable with seeing it and even start to believe it.” So – to the sword.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Causality or causation denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct consequence (result) of the first. Relationships can form an interconnected "deterministic" chain.

What were the prime causes of the refugee disaster? IDF military intelligence reports from the time conclude “that 70 percent of these Arabs had fled due to “direct, hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements” by Zionist militias, or the “effect of our hostile operations on nearby (Arab) settlements.” Historians with access to IDF archives, and to the diaries and biographies of Zionist leaders make similar conclusions, namely that both parties contributed to the pogrom, but that fear caused by military and militia was the main factor. Exultations by Arabs leaders for Palestinians to escape the hostilities until the Arab army victory was realised was an important but secondary contribution.

Was the War the unique cause leading to the above actions? Of course not. The War itself was caused by a series of prior contributing factors, amongst which the most significant was the unilateral declaration of independence of the State of Israel, but also the abandonment of the British of their Mandate, the role played by western guilt concerning the holocaust, the British war debt; US pressure on Britain, the fact that the UN did not allow the ancestral inhabitants any say in resolution 181, especially where related to the route to the creation of a Jewish country, etc.

So, to maintain that the refugee problem was caused by the war and that the war was started by the Arabs, and hence that the Arabs were responsible for the Palestine pogrom, contains glaring and fatal logic flaws and completely ignores obviously contributory prior causes, especially the declaration of the independence of Israel.

So, such are Myths. Logic and history are of lesser importance. What really counts is to repeat them over and over, and when they are disproved, to allow them to rise again like a Phoenix from the ashes, and then to start the whole process anew.

If logic is too difficult a concept, let me provide an analogy. You own a 2-storied house. The local magistrate grants a foreign family the right to occupy half of the upper floor of your house, because their ancestors lived on what is now your plot of land, some 2000 years ago. You object but the magistrate ignors you. Distant relations of this foreign family are subject to gross injustices and genocide hundreds of kilomotres from your home. The magistrate does not respond to demands that many more of the family should be allowed into your house and that the upper floor should belong to the foregners. The foreigners blow up the magistrates court and kill his son. He moves out, handing over the dossier to the Judge in a far away province. The judge and his assessors give this family the right to take ownership of the upper floor of your house without even speaking to you. The intruding family claims the right to ownership.

You naturally object, and when justice does not come to your aid, you take matters into your owns hands and attack the family on the upper floor. They prove to too strong for you and in the process toss you out from the remaining rooms on the upper floor. You now have control over less than half of your house.

Distant friends of this family publish a claim on the internet that you were reponsible for the fact that you were tossed out of the upper floor of what used to be your house, because you attacked those who claimed ownership.

Does that little piece of fiction resonably reflect the situation up to 1949 in the southern Levant? How do you feel about what has been done to you to date. But don't relax too much, 1967 has yet to befall you.

What were the prime causes of the refugee disaster? IDF military intelligence reports from the time conclude “that 70 percent of these Arabs had fled due to “direct, hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements” by Zionist militias, or the “effect of our hostile operations on nearby (Arab) settlements.” Historians with access to IDF archives, and to the diaries and biographies of Zionist leaders make similar conclusions..

You provide NO sources for your claims or quotes.

Clearly Plagiarized/Lifted from some revisionist wonderland- perhaps old Benny Morris crap?
(much of it Recanted/re-revised/Proved Fraudulent since written. Hard to keep up with Beeny)

and NONE of which refutes the FACT that without the Arab-Started War There would not be these Refugees.
No Doubt Military operations during the [Arab Started] war created refugees! but that was MY contention not yours.

You asssert 'myth' but then unwittingly prove the Myth was fact.

Bizarre

(looks up at the post above)

*SIGH*

I don't provide a reference; but he provides zero facts at all. Zero!!! Read his post again if you don't believe me. See .... none. Compare it to the post before that for facts.

*SIGH*

Such is the way of the Myth Makers.

Oh, the references?

Dayan, Moshe. Story of My Life. New York: Morrow, 1976

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer230/230_beinin.html

"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here... Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages. And I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahalal rose in the place of Heneifs and Kefar Yehoshua in place of Tell-shaman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.’ Address by Moshe Dayan to students of Technion, Haifa. Reported by Ha’aretz newspaper 4 April 1969.

[The referee stops the contest because of ...... can anyone tell me?]

I am tired of the weaseling. Provide facts, not ravings; provide evidence, not personal attacks. For any other references, refer to Ashley's meticulous documentation of the 9 Zionist Myths.

So To summarize.

1. As I pointed out in my Last, you not only Don't rebut my Claim that the 1948 Refugees were mainly caused by the 1948 War.. you Unwittingly confirmed it!
And have dropped it from your last.
* SIGH*
(Dear "referee".. opponent didn't even come of of corner!)


2. After me forcing you to Divulge the source of your Witheld/Plagiarized Quotes/snippets.
...you provide another Tidbit, at least a bit longer and more contextualized from the same source. Or so you say.

Alas for you, longer though it is, it is a FRAUD (by omission) quote that is anything but contextulaized.
The Internet filled with Trash/Fake "Zionist Quotes" like this.

Originally Posted by Klipkap

Oh, the references?

Dayan, Moshe. Story of My Life. New York: Morrow, 1976

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer230/230_beinin.html

"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state here... Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages. And I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahalal rose in the place of Heneifs and Kefar Yehoshua in place of Tell-shaman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.’

Address by Moshe Dayan to students of Technion, Haifa. Reported by Ha’aretz newspaper 4 April 1969.

Did Dayan really say this? Again, Not quite, since the key sentence that REVERSES the meaning of the quotation is Omitted, both by Walt and Mearsheimer, and by their very partisan source for this quote, Walid Khalidi.

The passage is from an address Dayan gave to Technion students on March 19, 1969 (the Technion is more or less Israel’s MIT). A transcript of the speech appeared in Ha'aretz on April 4, 1969. In answer to a student’s question suggesting that Israel deport to Jordan Palestinian attackers from the West Bank, Dayan answers that he is vehemently opposed to this idea, insisting that Arabs have roots in the land just like Jews, and that the two peoples must learn to live together. He goes on to say:

We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we Purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn't any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement. (emphasis added)

Dayan’s larger point that the two peoples must Learn to Coexist in itself contradicts the picture painted by Walt and Mearsheimer of ruthless Israelis dispossessing and oppressing Arabs. But the key is the sentence in bold above, which was curiously Omitted by Khalidi and therefore missed by the credulous Walt and Mearsheimer: “In a considerable number of places, we Purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.”
Thus, once again, far from supporting the point Walt and Mearsheimer were trying to make, the quote, when rendered accurately, actually undermines it....":

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_pr...x_article=1446

OOOOPH!... er.. *SIGH*

Your "referee" is indeed needed stop this complete Wipe out.

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

[b]1. As I pointed out in my Last, you not only Don't rebut my Claim that the 1948 Refugees were mainly caused by the 1948 War.. you Unwittingly confirmed it

You really are quite funny
I didn't unwittingly confirm it. I know it to be a fact of history, and so do 99.9% of the people who participate on this forum. It is but one of a closely-spaced pair of events in a long historical chain.

So tell me, Beletesri, which part of the cause-and-effect concept did you not understand, which makes you worry away at this one link like an obsessed terrier with a bone.

Was it the bit about cause-and-effect (in the case of our example) having a series of chainlike events and that you are viewing just 2 of the links in isolation from the rest, and plaintively insisting that I acknowledge this self-evident fact, or ....

Was it that it is not logical debating style nor a positive contribution to understanding to go back in history to the point that suites you, and then to insist that we stop there so that you may show that the Arabs are the main cause of the refugee problem.

Beleteri, dont you see that to most folk this juvenile debating tactic is glaringly obvious, and does nothing to prove that the Arabs were the main cause of the refugee dibacle which becomes quite clear when the ENTIRE chain is viewed?

Thank you for your clarification on Dayan's address. I mean that sincerely. But tell me, how does it change the fact that Dayan knew that the Arabs were there from way back, and that the Israelis moves them out = a pogrom = ethnic cleansing?

Originally Posted by klipkap

Oh you bet, there is a lot more. I would like to break your response up into three issues to make it more manageable. [And yes, I did notice your weaseling about your statement that the Arabs got 99% of the Ottoman empire]

1) That the Zionists are peace lovers who never took anything from anyone
2) That the Arabs were responsible for the Palestinian refugees because they started the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and
3) The challenge that I document Arab attempts at peace since 1948

This post refers to the last of Beletesri's issues (in fact they are or reflect standard Zionist myths), namely:
3) The challenge that I document Arab attempts at peace since 1948

The myth that the Arabs never did anything to seek meaningful peace is one of the most enduring of the Zionist mantras.

Yet this is perhaps not surprising, given that certain critical communications from February 1971 are so poorly known in the West. It is indeed so difficult to get detailed information on the “Jarring aide memoire” that it is almost as if these critical communications never took place.

But thanks to the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, these details can be referenced on this forum.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Re...se-+8+Febr.htm

QUOTE: On 8 February (1971), Ambassador Jarring sent identical letters to the Governments of Israel and Egypt. Israel was asked to give a commitment to withdraw its forces to the former Mandatory border between Palestine and Egypt, on the understanding that arrangements would be made for the freedom of navigation in the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal, and that demilitarized zones would be established, and that United Nations forces be stationed there. Egypt was asked to terminate claims to a state of belligerency and end all hostile acts; it was not asked to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Israel delivered its reply on 26 February, and the Egyptian Government replied on 15 February. [odd wording – the Egyptians were the first to respond]

The UAR (Egyptian) response of 15th February 1971: [I have placed the text of UNSC 242 in square brackets so that the context of the Egyptian reply can be clearly seen]
The UAR has informed Your Excellency that it accepts to carry out on a reciprocal basis all its obligations as provided for in Security Council Resolution 242/1967 with a view to achieving a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.
On the same basis, Israel should carry out all its obligations contained in this Resolution. Referring to your aide-memoire of February 1971, the UAR would give a commitment covering the following:
1. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency; [Resolution 242 Clause 1.(ii) 'Termination of all claims or states of belligerency']
2. Respect for and acknowledgement of each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. [the same 242 clause continuing: “and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area”]
3. Respect for and acknowledgement of each other's right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries. [the same 242 clause continues “and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”]
4. Responsibility to do all in their power to ensure that acts of belligerency or hostility do not originate from or are committed from within the respective territories against the population, citizens or property of the other party; and [this was not a requirement of 242, but it shows a remarkable degree of proactive response from Sadat, anticipating that he needed to show good faith vis-à-vis other organisations]
5. Non-interference in each other's domestic affairs. (also not required but showing willingness to go beyond the bare minimum, and to leave it up to the parties to find internal solutions)
The UAR would also give a commitment that
6. it ensures the freedom of navigation in the Suez canal in accordance with the 1888 Constantinopole Convention; [UNSC 242 clause 2 (a): For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area
7. It ensures the freedom of navigation in the Straits of Tiran in accordance with the principles of international law; [see 6]
8. It accepts the stationing of a United Nations peace-keeping force in Sharm el-Sheikh.
To guarantee the peaceful settlement and the territorial inviolability of every State in the area, the UAR would accept:
a. The establishment of demilitarized zones astride the borders in equal distances; and
b. The establishment of a United Nations peace-keeping force in which the four permanent members of the Security Council would participate.
Israel should, likewise, give a commitment to implement all the provisions of the Security Council's Resolution 242 of 1967. Israel should give a commitment covering the following:
1. Withdrawal of its armed forces from Sinai arid the Gaza Strip; [242 clause 1 (i)]
2. Achievement of a just settlement for the refugee problem in accordance with United Nations resolutions; [242 clause 2 (b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem
3. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency [equal to the commitment made by Egypt]
4. Respect for and acknowledgement of each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence; [equal to the Egyptian commitment]
5. Respect for and acknowledgement of each other's right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries; [equal to the Egyptian commitment]
6. Responsibility to do all in their power to ensure that acts of belligerency or hostility do not originate from or are committed from within the respective territories against the population, citizens or property of the other party; [equal to the Egyptian commitment]
7. Non-interference in each other's domestic affairs. [equal to the Egyptian commitment]
To guarantee the peaceful settlement and the territorial inviolability of every State in the area, Israel should accept:
a. The establishment of demilitarized zones astride the borders in equal distances; and [equal]
b. The establishment of a United Nations peace-keeping force in which the four permanent members of the Security Council would participate. [equal]
When Israel gives these commitments, the UAR will be ready to enter into a peace agreement with Israel containing all the aforementioned obligations as provided for in Security Council Resolution 242.
The UAR considers that just and lasting peace cannot be realized without the full and scrupulous implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 and the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from all the territories occupied since 5 June 1967. [UNQUOTE]
______________________________ ________________
In other word Egypt is committing to the exact wording of UNSC 242 and also adding some valuable further commitments.

To me that seems to be a MASSIVE contribution to reaching peace in the southern Levant - MASSIVE. Here is the de facto leader of the Arabs in the Middle East saying, if Israel is also willing to comply with UNSC 242, the UAR will commit to the full implementation of Resolution 242, PLUS they add some boilerplate in promising to try to get all parties within their territory to comply.

So what happened!!??

This was an absolutely golden opportunity. Did someone drop the ball? Did someone waste a golden opportunity to have the State of Israel recognised by the Arabs, to end the hostilities, and at the same time to provide the Arabs with a carrot they could sell to their people? There it is - LAND for PEACE. What could be better?

Next time around we will examine the Israeli response 11 days later.