Thread: Resolution 242; What it REALLY means

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Israel has always sought peace. After acquiring the territory in the '67 War, Israel offered return of the land merely in exchange for peace with the savage Arabs. The animals retreated to Khartourm and returned with the Khartoum Resolution flatly rejecting Israel's offer of land-for-peace with the famous "Three No's: No peace with Israel. No negotiations with Israel. No recognition of Israel's right to exist"
Now, it's too late for the beasts to get their land back. Tough shiite.

Edwin, are you trying to say that Israel made a peace offer to the Arabs after the '67 war, an offer that was rejected by the Arabs at their Khartoum conference?

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Anyone who is the subject of continued threatening rhetoric from belligerent neigbors who is then surrounded by hundreds of thousands of troops and tanks from those belligerent neighbors would have a legitimate case for a preemptive first strike. Closing the Straits of Tiran was an act of war. There was and is no question that Israel was provoked into war by the Arabs.

Do not reinvent history.

So, Edwin, are you saying that Israel did not provoke any of those non-attacking moves by the Arab neighbours?

Originally Posted by klipkap

So, Edwin, are you saying that Israel did not provoke any of those non-attacking moves by the Arab neighbours?

The Arabs have always provoked war with Israel. Seems to be in their tribal DNA. If they're not attacking Jews, Arabs are attacking each other. This is one reason why Arabs are such a failed society.

Originally Posted by klipkap

Edwin, are you trying to say that Israel made a peace offer to the Arabs after the '67 war, an offer that was rejected by the Arabs at their Khartoum conference?

I'm not trying to say it, I said it. This is historic fact.

Originally Posted by klipkap

Edewin, I do not believe that you have even read Article 51 of the UN Charter given what you write above. You are guilty of half quotes.

Let me show other readers how subversive you are with the truth:

Article 51:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Edwin, it says "IF AN ARMED ATTACK OCCURS", a crucial element that you hae conveniently left out in your deformation of the Charter. So your conclusion as to Israel's 'rights' o attack under the current situation is thus pure fantasy.

Legal and military scholars agree that in the present climate, states are not expected to sit back and wait for an attack to occur. Thus, the US invaded Iraq based on the doctrine of preemptive self-defense. Similarly, Israel has the right, under Article 51, to preemptively destroy the nuclear capabilities of Iran which would be used to destroy Israel. Taking out Ajad and those mad Mullahs in the process wouldn't be so bad, either.

Originally Posted by klipkap

There is not such distinction between beligerent and defensive wars in international law, and for very good reason, because they would be near-impossible to define. Just look at this thread if you want an example. So, seek on for your justification in law for specific rulings on 'defensive' wars. I wish you lots of patience.

By the way, Charter Art. 2 (4) also refers to 'or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations'. One day when you are bored with still trying to find laws supporting or denying territorial acquisitions in 'defensive wars', look up these purposes.

Since you have failed so miserably to even try to ascertain the details on legal evaluations of territorial acquisition by conquest, there is no point in me trying to provide you with more details. One day, when you are willing to engage in open debate and forego your Zionist mantras, go to your local Library's reference section and get yourself a copy of Oppenheim's International Law (eds. Jennings and Watts). Look up the quotations therein on Brownlie - "International Law and the use of force by states". You will find most of your answers there.

See also Sharon Korman's work "The Right of Conquest - the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice". http://books.google.com/books?id=ueD...age&q=&f=false
I know that the foregoing is not a complete reference but it contains a good portion of her book and should help anyone who wants to understand where modern international law stands on the topic of territorial acquisition. Unfortunately it does not contain the really interesting chapters which I had to retrieve at my library.

I know that you, Edwin, are unlikely to seek these enlightenments because they will spoil your mantras, but a serious debater might want to go one step further and consult "The occupation of justice" by David Kretzmer. In his introduction (page 1) he writes:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_Th...age&q=&f=false

"The (Israeli) Supreme Court's decisions relating to the occupied territories constitute a unique body of jurisprudence on the international law of belligerant occupation."

Ooops - that is the Professor of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. But Edwin will probably reject that because Kretzmer does not address 'defensive war'. Oy vey!! There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You know nothing of the matter, so, why even bother to post? International legal scholar Julius Stone has written definitively that states acquiring land in war defensively are not compelled to forfeit that land.

Israel seized all incremental territory in defensive wars, which is a matter of historical fact. UN Res. 242 requesting that Israel surrender territory acquired in the '67 War is non-binding.

Furthermore, the San Remo Resolution legally transferred sovereignty over all of Palestine from the Ottoman Turks to the Jews of Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine legally established all of Palestine as the Jewish homeland, which is protected by the UN Charter.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

The Arabs have always provoked war with Israel. Seems to be in their tribal DNA. If they're not attacking Jews, Arabs are attacking each other. This is one reason why Arabs are such a failed society.

So it is not cultural racism with you, it's the old-fashioned racism.

Originally Posted by moon

Self-defense cannot constitute aggression in itself. You think that the international lawmakers would leave a loophole for sneaks, aggressors and Neo-Zionists ?

You're confused. Take a pill. The US invaded Iraq based on the principle of preemptive self-defense. Israel has no less right to invade a belligerent state than the US.

Sorry.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Legal and military scholars agree that in the present climate, states are not expected to sit back and wait for an attack to occur. Thus, the US invaded Iraq based on the doctrine of preemptive self-defense.

This was an American lie.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Similarly, Israel has the right, under Article 51, to preemptively destroy the nuclear capabilities of Iran which would be used to destroy Israel. Taking out Ajad and those mad Mullahs in the process wouldn't be so bad, either.

This would be a Jewish lie.

Originally Posted by Edwin30

Furthermore, the San Remo Resolution legally transferred sovereignty over all of Palestine from the Ottoman Turks to the Jews of Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine legally established all of Palestine as the Jewish homeland, which is protected by the UN Charter.

So why made the UN this partition plan then, where they only wanted like half of Palestine stolen and given to the Jews?