Abu you haven't debated a thing. Plenty of cut and paste on 242 you have been shown all the evidence but when anything gets too difficult or taxing you just ignore it. All you do is try to ram the anti-Palestinian view down everybodys throat. You have been told territorial expansion by military means is not legal and still you bang one claiming thats a debate. Most of you posts consist of abuse, thats not debate. You style is "agree with me or I'll shoot you", that is not debate thats thuggery. Every one that dares to disagree with your world view is termed anti-Semitic. What a great comeback if must have taken ages to think of that, such wit such style. Your prose read like a Neanderthal on Ritalin. But to go over it again as you clearly are unable to grasp any details whatsoever:- Klipkap wrote:- From the Resolution 242 full wording in Klipkaps posting. I then just filled in on what the court judgments were and that the Palestinians also had the right of self determination and of secure borders, implying that all parties were to have secure borders. Klipkap then finished the debate off with:- End of debate, please feel free to come back when you have something interesting to say! And the rest of the time Ive just been playing around with you. The Debate finished ages ago Abu. To go over it again with you is worthless. By the way you lost it Klipkap won. Four aces beat a bluff any day. Or are you still confused?
klip made your point already Assley in just a few sentences, not an Incoherent Link Dump-- and it was rebutted already. But thanks for this OP to pop up Caradon's statements Again. Lord Caradon, an [chief] author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970): "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." MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978 Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?" Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary... Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969: Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?" Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read Concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."...." Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970: "I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and Not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will NOT withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70) USA Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"): "That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties." Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law/Public Affairs, Yale University.. 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs: a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and Not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' Failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, Not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." USSR - Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242: " ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67) +More at link below http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242b.html How True Vasily. How true.
I have gone quiet on this thread because I realise, Abu, that you and I have irreconcilably different ethical and procedural views which prevent us from having meaningful debate. You believe that weasel-wording about the intended meaning of 242 is critical and overwhemingly pertinent. You believe that statements by lawyers, draftees and miscellaneous commentators such as US presidents dictate the "real meaning" of 242. I reject these views - our discord is just that simple. I prefer to respect the democratic process of voting for what it is meant to be - the empowerment of certain individuals to cast a vote on the wording of a proposal as they read it. Wikipedia summarises this view as follows: QUOTE: Supporters of an "all territories" reading point out that the intentions and opinions of draftsmen are not normally considered relevant to the interpretation of law, their role being purely administrative. It is claimed that much more weight should be given to opinons expressed on the matter in discussions at the Security Council prior to the adoption of the resolution. The representative for India stated to the Security Council: It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories - I repeat, all the territories - occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967. The representatives from Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, as worded by the representative from Mali: "[Mali] wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text". Israel was the only country represented at the Security Council to express a contrary view.UNQUOTE So I give the most weight to what the voting persons said they had voted on. To give more importance to the utterances of some administrators is to simply subvert the democratic process by word weaseling. The majority of UNSC members voted - a verifiable fact - that Israeli armed forces should "withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict" based on "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". My view is that uncomplicated and non-weaselly. By the way Abu, your are starting with your personal attacks again - please stop.
Abu I think Klipkap has been lenient with you:- For the UK Lord Caradon, an [chief] author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970): Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970: For the USA Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"): Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law/Public Affairs, Yale University. 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs: For the USSR Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242: As though the rest of the world has no voice or don't you agree with democracy? Whatever was said about UN resolution 242 is by and large immaterial as that which came after was the Oslo Accords which superseded UN resolution 242 as Shimon Peres said In short, we had to work toward establishing a new Middle East based on prosperity and hope instead of poverty and anguish. This was not the time for memories. It was a time to form a new agenda. The accord in Oslo and the ceremony in Washington were but a stepping-stone from which to leap higher and farther than ever before. Peres, Shimon. The New Middle East, Henry Holt and Company, NewYork:1993. The world moves on and people learn, Peres obviously did and so did Arafat. You have been left behind on a barren rocky shore, re-fighting a long dead war using outdated material. Oslo Accords gave five Years for a hand over what happened to Israel complying with their side of the Accords?
I still see no rebuttal to the UNequivocal statements of the Drafters (and voters) on this resolution. Nor to the logic presented along the way about Arab rejection and only Grudging and SUBSEQUENT 'acceptance' of what they knew the Res DidN'T mean originally and Rejected. Of course one could one say except some vague refeernce to 'Word Weaseling'.. Ironically it was the MIStranslation of the French that Arabs and antizionist now cease upon. THAT'S 'weaseling'.
Pretty UNambiguous I'd say.. and no weaseling at all except for the initial Arab rejection and the subsequent! Weaseling acceptance. .
3 votes out of how many was that Abu. But you dont believe in democracy do you??? The Security Council; Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, Affirms that the fulfillment 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: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; 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 recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; Affirms further the necessity For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible. Oh wow you lost the debate again and again and again. Soviet Union maintained that there would be no direct talks with Israel (in keeping with the Khartoum Resolution), and that withdrawals were a pre-condition for any further talks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarring_Mission Strike the USSR. The Rogers Plan The Israeli interpretation of the plan was that it required Israel to withdraw from areas captured during the Six-Day War without any assurances of a lasting peace from Arab states. There was also considerable resistance among Israelis about the status of Jerusalem. As a result, the Israeli government determined that support of the plan would be "irresponsible." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_plan Strike the USA. So now you are left with the UK version of interpretation against how many now. Bye bye Abu you're out.
January 15, 2007 Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters After the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel prevented an attempt by surrounding Arab nations to destroy it militarily, the United Nations Security Council prepared a carefully-worded resolution to guide the parties. Since then, U.N. Resolution 242 has been invoked as the centerpiece for negotiation efforts, including the Israeli-Egyptian Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords and the Road Map peace plan. But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines the armistice lines established after Israels War of Independence. Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement. Sometimes, the misrepresentations are redressed, as was the case when the New York Times and others corrected errors about the resolution. In other cases, inaccurate characterizations still await formal correction, as is the case with Jimmy Carters repeated distortion of the resolution in his book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. Below are statements by the main drafters of Resolution 242 Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and Baron George-Brown as well as others, in which the meaning and history of Resolution 242 are explained. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypts Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49: Much play has been made of the fact that we didnt say the territories or all the territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the the or all the that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly NOT prepared to recommend. Journal of Palestine Studies, An Interview with Lord Caradon, Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45: Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, but not from the occupied territories? A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you cant justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and its a rotten line. You couldnt have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. Its where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. Its got no relation to the needs of the situation. HAD we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldnt hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to lets read the words carefully secure and recognized boundaries. The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; its only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind that security doesnt come from arms, it doesnt come from territory, it doesnt come from geography, it doesnt come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding. Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didnt attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line. MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978: 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. Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48: It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didN'T demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ... Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant? A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary... ." [.......] http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267
The biggest problem is that Israel do not recognise their borders, so why should anyone else. Israel sends settlers across what are thought to be borders by the international community, and then builds an insecurity fence. Is Israel going to abandon those settlers? If not then Israel does not recognise it own borders. Would the borders put forward in the Partition plan of 1947 be more secure? Resolution 242 also calls for the Palestinians to have secure borders. All your posts Abu assume that only Israel is to have security.
According to wiki: "The United Nations resolutions, including 242, consider the area under Israeli occupation from which Israel should withdraw (extent disputed) under a peace treaty. (See Current status below)." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights So exactly what peace treaty between Palestine and Israel since then can you cite that has been upheld since its implementation? There is none. You can blame whoever you want on it. I think it is Satan's work .
Had to defensively start his strings. He couldn't debate the truth of mine Loaded with info - so just started his own to the contrary with NO facts, just assertions!
I don't know why you have tried to revive old strings where you got a pasting? Still I will enjoy the sport. I see you are still unoriginal spewing the same copy paste blather as though saying something twenty times will turn a lie into a truth.
Copy paste spam again Afak. Same line in all posts. No change from you. Get back to your conspiracy theory corner. There's no meat just froth Afak.
Abu, you seem to continue to have a misconception about that critical democratic process called voting. It is meant to record the views of those who are entitled to vote. No more - no less. So what the author of a resolution said he meant is supremely uninteresting. What REALLY IS interesting is the debate in the UN and what the voting delegates said that they were understanding on any particular issue. You see Abu, that is why the explanations of India and Brasil's representatives are indeed infinitely more pretinent that Lord C's explanations. He didnt have a vote. Understand? So please stop refering to what the good Lord said he meant. It might be intersting, but it is not pertinent to the outcome. Should you have difficulty in understanding the voting system, I can point you to some basic web pages on the topic. Read my lips, Abu. The Delegates vote, not the resolution's author.
Much play has been made of the wording to UN resolution 242 and the fact that it doesnt say the territories or all the territories. But was that deliberate. I myself know very well that the 1967 boundaries were not the original Partition boundaries and if the resolution had put in the the or all the that could only have meant that they wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. So obviously the UN was not prepared to recommend the 1967 Green line but the original partition boundary.
It is only reasonable that readers of 242 defer to the authors of 242 and not passing political vagaries. indeed Link Dumping to bury not only what was written but what the authors of what was written said the intent of what was written is the recourse of beggared argument.
Not quite it followed a debate where points were raised. The representative for India stated to the Security Council:- http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063!OpenDocument And all the 242 says is:- http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement The First World War led to the rise of self-determination and to calls for the prohibition of war, prompted the reconstruction of international law and the consequent abolition of "title by conquest." Modern law has been used as a means of discouraging war by denying the title to the conqueror. The thing with GA resolutions is you are supposed to read the whole resolution and not just one word.
ashley: the absurdity of what you say can be put this way - what you say and what you meant to say as the author of you post has no meaning. i will tell you what you meant by what you said and you must believe me that i know better than you on what you said! ashley demonstrates beggared logic. especially without consulting the author on the author's intent! you begin to sound like arafat interpreting un resolution 194 as the definition of the palestinians "sacred right of return" while urging violence against israel.
For UN GA resolutions it is not what the Author intended but what the GA intends by voting. The Authors (UK) abstained. It has always been the right of People to return to their own property irrespective of boundary changes. Para 11 resolution was only stating normal practice not a "Palestinian sacred right" but all peoples right.
ashley: wrong ashley. 181((partition) was what the brits abstained from not from 242. for interpreting what 242 means one needs to go to the authors of 242. now let us just do that: THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242 "The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242], tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change...Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.' When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution [calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines] but it was Not a viable alternative to the UK text...Members [of the UN Security Council] voted and adopted the [UK drafted] resolution unanimously..." (UN Security Council Resolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28. Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242: "...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is Lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, Failed to command the requisite support..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973). Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... - Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was NOT to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' [1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17). The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft, which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council. (American Society of International Law, 1970). UNSC RESOLUTION AND ISRAEL'S DEFENSIBLE BORDERS: A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of 'secure boundaries' for Israel. They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler. The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.' (Prof. Ezra Zohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000). http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/242a.html now ashley others can opine what the authors of 242 meant but that is gossip. it is only when the authors him/herself speak to what they wrote can we understand their intentions. surely you are not that dense!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,838915,00.html The pre-amble for 242 says it all really. All or the is irrelevant. The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East. Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement And what was said in the debates:- The representative for India stated to the Security Council:- "It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories - I repeat, all the territories - occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967." http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063!OpenDocument That pretty much says it. As with all chambers it is not what the intention of the author that counts it is the debate that follows. And why the spurious use of the US drivel when the US weren't even the authors???? The US is not the voice of the UN. It is one of many voices.
not really ashley. it is an interpretation only. which is permitted. but to get to the real meaning one needs to consult the authors. The pre-amble for 242 says it all really. All or the is irrelevant. ashley: you have an argument here ashley but to acquire territory by war required one to have initiated the war. israel didn't initiate the war it was the arabs that initiated the war to indeed make a land grab of israel. when israel successfully won the defensive war she was left with land that was part of the palestinian mandate to be negotiated between the concerned parties. the arabs, including the yet to be named palestinian arabs had fled the field. to this day israel wants to negotiate final boundaries with the arabs. but alas they still hold out for all of the palestine mandate. i refer you to the yet to be amended palestinian charter (covanent) so israel and the arabs have a long way to go.
Or even better consult the document itself. As in read the preamble which the Author wrote and all the Security Council voted on. Address by Prime Minister Begin at the National Defence College- 8 August 1982 Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967 US State Johnson Administration Volume XIX May 11, 1967 Israeli PM Eshkol states, "In view of the 14 incidents in the past month alone it is possible that we will have to adopt measures no less drastic than those of April 7." UPI circulated a rumour (May 12) that Israel was trying to topple the Syrian regime. The incidents included shelling, terror attacks and attempted infiltration of a Syrian agent to blow up locations in Jerusalem. May 12, 1967 Remarks by Yitzhak Rabin interpreted as provocative against Syria. Rabin is rebuked by Eshkol. May 13, 1967 Soviets inform Anwar Sadat in Moscow that Israel is massing 10-12 brigades in preparation for an attack on Syria, supposedly to take place May 17. The information is denied by Israeli Government. But:- 3. El Feki followed all of this most carefully and with genuine interest. He said that he was particularly struck by the fact that whereas the Israelis denied any build up on the Syrian border, no mention was made of Jordanian border. He also read from one of his intelligence reports which highlighted fact that yesterday's Jerusalem parade did not include any significant heavy equipment, thus revealing that such equipment had been kept with units. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xix/28052.htm May 14, 1967 First reports of Egyptian troop movements into Sinai. May 16, 1967 Radio Cairo broadcast stated: "The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel." May 18, 1967 Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser orders the United Nations Emergency Force to leave Sinai. May 20 1967, Egypt began withdrawing its troops from Yemen, and Israel re-evaluated the situation. The IDF responded with a large-scale mobilization of its reserve forces, which paralysed Israel's economy. May 21, 1967 Ben-Gurion summons Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin and accuses him of precipitating the crisis and dragging Israel into a dangerous war. On the following day, Rabin, under tremendous pressure, is incapacitated temporarily by nicotine poisoning, massive fatigue or a nervous breakdown. May 23, 1967 Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser closes the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Egypt moves six divisions, about 130,000 soldiers, into Sinai. Negotiations with US to reopen the Straits of Tiran fail. 23 May 1967 The Israeli cabinet met and decided to launch a pre-emptive strike if the Straits of Tiran were not re-opened to Israeli shipping by 25 May. Following an approach from US Undersecretary of State Eugene Rostow to allow time for the negotiation of a non-violent solution Israel agreed to a delay of ten days to two weeks. May 26, 1967 Speech by Gamal Nasser to Arab Trade Unionists Nasser claimed that Egypt was only looking for the right movement and the proper excuse to fight for the Palestinian cause. http://www.mideastweb.org/nasser26may67.htm Two Egyptian Air Force MiG 21s over flew the Israeli nuclear reactor in Dimona. Israel was unable to intercept them, and the over-flight caused quite a bit of concern. Needless to say, this rather explicit speech on the same day produced alarm in Israel. MidEast Web May 26, 1967 President Johnson reluctantly agrees to see Abba Eban. Tells him he is powerless to act to open straits of Tiran and requires more time (about two weeks) to assemble UN support for a regatta to open the straits. Warns Israel against unilateral action. Subsequent UN debate proves fruitless. May 27, 1967 Nasser cancels a planned Egyptian attack on Israel (Operation fajr - Dawn), planned for following day, after it became obvious that the Israelis knew about the plan. May 28, 1967 Israeli Levi Eshkol broadcasts a hesitant, stammering speech, further exacerbating pressure on him to make way for other leaders. Later it is claimed that the stammering was due to problems in reading the manuscript. 28 May Secretary McNamara said the Israelis think they can win in 3-4 days; but he thinks it would be longer--7 to 10 days. US State Johnson Administration Volume XIX May 29, 1967 Speech by Gamal Nasser to Egyptian National Assembly Members - Nasser explicitly threatened to destroy Israel: "...God will surely help and urge us to restore the situation to what it was in 1948....But now that the time has come - and I have already said in the past that we will decide the time and place and not allow them to decide - we must be ready for triumph and not for a recurrence of the 1948 comedies. " May 30, 1967 Jordan signs a defence pact with Egypt, allows Egyptian command of Jordan Legion. May Israel mobilizes 13 brigades on Syrian border. Nasser informs Robert Anderson who carried out diplomatic missions on behalf of President Lyndon B. Johnson saying he [Nasser] felt he had no choice but to mobilize and send troops to Sinai. May 31, 1967 President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq stated "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map. Jun 2, 1967 Moshe Dayan joins Israeli cabinet as Minister of Defence (the US assessment is that the appointment was hardly favourable to restraint). Unity government formed. Reservists released for furlough before outbreak of the war. June 5 - The Six-Day War begins when Israel stages simultaneous air strikes that destroy the air forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, leaving their ground forces at the mercy of the Israeli air force. By June 11 Israel gains control of the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. Looks like Israel initiated the 67 War of Choice. And Israel carried out a second ethnic cleansing in an effort to create the Jewish State of Eretz Israel. Israel wants acquiescence for the creation of Greater Israel. Territorial expansion by war is not nor never has been negotiation. May I remind you:- so Israel and the Arabs have a long way to go.[/quote] Amended August 1993. "A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by cancelling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993. Looks like Israel has the furthest to go.
