Did Caradon bring his line up in the discussion No. Why because it is a straw man argument that would have been picked apart. His later versions have no relevance at all. Mr. PARTHASARATHI (India) Lord Caradon:- Mr. DE CARVALHO SILOS (Brazil) Do you know what negotiations mean Hasbara 2.??? Negotiations does not mean if Israel says Israel gets. If the Negotiators for the Palestinians says no, then Israel does not get. The negotiations was about minor changes to boundaries, not major. Israel has to put something on the table. Israel has never put anything on the table. Israel because of Israeli's obstinacy will finish as a failed experiment. The War will continue. While Israel is at the negotiating table no country will have a partner for peace. Israel needs to find a new tune, the old refrain from Israel is well out dated. Missiles have made any Israeli border vulnerable. Israel's security lies in making up with the neighbours. Israel has run out of time and every Arab nation can see it.
ashley's response was a lie: Quote: your post produce only 3 perhaps 4 member of the assembly that israel had to withdraw to the 67 borders. only russia was a member of the security council at the time of the vote and russia knew full well that the meaning of 242 did not include withdrawing to the 67 borders. you have produced nothing indicating that the authors of 242 revised their earlier opinions 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... but the pressing issue is your outright lie: ashley: only one of which was a member of the security council.
Negotiations have never been the sticking point. Minor border adjustments is measured in yards not miles. But Israel has to remember that the secure border applies to Palestine as well, if that means for Palestinian security that Israel must give up Israeli territory to achieve Palestinian security then I am sure that Palestinian authorities will be all to pleased to give up some of Palestinian territory. Israel has to compromise on like for like. As the Israeli squatter camps have been deemed to be illegal; the squatters will have to go first. Then negotiations can follow about border adjustments and the return of refugees. Funny how Hasbara 2 thinks that Negotiations means that Israel gets what Israel wants???? Until Israel realises that just solutions is the only way for a lasting peace Israel will be at War.
ashley: oh ashley why do you lie?? the arabs didn't even sign on to 242 just as they didn't sign on to 194. they didn't because they didn't want to recognized the existence of israel. Interpretation Broadly speaking, Israel interprets Resolution 242 as calling for withdrawal from territories as part of a negotiated peace and full diplomatic recognition. The extent of withdrawal would come as a result of comprehensive negotiations that led to durable peace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242 ashley: once again the ashley dissembling. if it were a matter of "yard", the clinton initiate could have been negotiated. ashley knows it isn't about "yards", its about israel' existence. the poison pill is found in ""just settlement of the refugee problem" and the palestinians view of it as the "sacred right of return" thus giving the palestinians not one but two states. one in which the jews have been ethnically cleansed" and one to be swamped by demographics. from the world's beggars to owner of two estates at the great UN. cute.
now my sweetnes you need to remember the words of abu abbas: - by Abu Mazen (ever hear of him?), from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976
Ever heard of collusion across the Jordan? Abdullah had made no secret that he wanted to be King of both sides of the Jordan with Palestine being an autonomous Jewish state. Abdullah was not exactly friendly towards any Palestinian nationalistic agencies. When the Partition areas were announced Abdullah and the Jewish leadership basically divided Palestine into Jordanian and Jewish areas. So yes Jordan did invade the Arab partition areas of Palestine. Abdullah as CnC of the Arab league forces kept the Arab league forces within the areas set aside for the Arab partition. The times when there was conflict between Abdullah's Arab league forces and Jewish forces was when the Jewish forces invaded the Arab league areas, such as Latrun. So yes the Arab League forces under Abdullah did abandon the Palestinians inside the area set aside for the Jewish partition and also the Western Galilee area that Lebanese forces were supposed to hold. The small Lebanese force was no match for the larger haganah forces opposing it, that and the fact that Carmel had started ethnic cleansing of an area wholly Palestinian. As the Palestinians within what was to become the State of Israel had not military protection the Palestinians were forced to leave their homes. As the Israelis last action of mass ethnic cleansing was in 1950 at Majdal it does show that you are talking a load of BS Hasbaratoo. I notice you give no links to the source of your quote.
Now a little context to your quote. Abu Mazen while at the Aqaba summit, Abbas was saying that the Arab apparent unity was an illusion and that each Arab nation was looking out for their own benefits and national advantage. Hence the Palestinians had been abandoned and that the Palestinians were going to have to look to themselves for a solution. In 2003 Abbas wrote an article (Washington Post) based on an article from the March 1976 edition of Falastin al-Thawra, which is the official journal of the PLO in Beirut "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemned to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable". - by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976 Bit of a different emphasis there hasbaratoo. In June 2003 Abu Mazen was trying to be conciliatory. The Aqaba summit, June 2003 was going on. http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/aqaba03.htm And you Hasbara use conciliatory remarks out of context to demonise Arabs and incite hate for Palestinians.
I will report this as crude and unfair. Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:15 pm concheet wrote (View Post): The Massacre of the Convoy of 35- January 16, 1948 After the attack of January 14, Uzi Narkiss demanded resupply from the Hagannah. 38 Hagannah personnel set out on foot from Hartuv at 11 PM on January 15, commanded by Danny Mas. Three were sent back because of injuries. The fate of these 35 was reconstructed from British and Arab reports. The six hours of night did not suffice. About an hour before their destination it became light. They were detected by Arab shepherds or women not far from Tzurif. They did not harm the Arab civilian, who hurried to sound the alarm, and a large group of armed Arabs gathered to block their way. The battle lasted the entire day. The last defender was apparently killed at about 4:30 PM. The British in the nearby police station did not interfere until the battle was over. The Arab attackers mutilated the bodies of the defenders according to British soldiers who witnessed the aftermath of the attack. A soldier who took pictures of mutilated bodies left his roll of film to be developed in Jerusalem and never came back for it. Several decades later the negatives were discovered, but it was decided not to publish the atrocities. http://www.zionism-israel.com/Gush_Etzion_Massacre.htm ashleykennedy wrote (View Post): concheet wrote (View Post): The tea Party of the Convoy of 35- January 16, 1948 After the attack of January 14, Uzi Narkiss demanded resupply from the Hagannah. 38 Hagannah personnel set out on foot from Hartuv at 11 PM on January 15, commanded by Danny Mas. Three were sent back because of injuries. The fate of these 35 was reconstructed from British and Arab reports. The six hours of night did not suffice. About an hour before their destination it became light. They were detected by Arab shepherds or women not far from Tzurif. They did not harm the Arab civilian, who hurried to sound the alarm, and a large group of armed Arabs gathered to block their way. The battle lasted the entire day. The last defender was apparently killed but not actually killed just sent on their way with a tea bun at about 4:30 PM. The British in the nearby police station did not interfere until the battle was over. The Arab attackers painted the bodies of the defenders according to British soldiers who witnessed the aftermath of the tea party. A soldier who took pictures of painted bodies left his roll of film to be developed in Jerusalem and never came back for it. Several decades later the negatives were discovered, but it was decided not to publish pictures of the tea party. http://www.zionism-israel.com/Gush_Etzion_Massacre.htm Sorry no massacre, Abu would class it as a tea party. And it is not about the title on the thread. ashley you are one (.) to ashley what people write is unimportant until ashley works it over.
Quote: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable". - by Abu Mazen (ever hear of him?), from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976 They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable". the arabs did not recognize the palestinian people period. that's because they didn't exist as a separate people. Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said: Quote: This view was also expressed by some Arab leaders. Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader said to the Peel Commission, "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria." Quote: When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called "the holy land" (al-Arad al-Muqaddash). http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=424242#424242 They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable". that means that the palestinians as a people did not exist at the time because until the world recognized them the arabs wouldn't and since the arab didn't the world didn't. even "palestinians" themselves said that the use of "palestinian" was a tactical convenience! but the world's longest running begging society, the palestinians, do exist today. just read the racist palestinian charter for the definition.
The Yeshiva in Jerusalem has had the begging bowl out from literally the year dot. The profession of shnorrer, a collector of charity. Though the organized Jewish community has gotten the mitzvah of giving tzedakah down to a virtual science. http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8049.html After the Fatimid move of the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria to Cairo in around 1070 and centralising its power there also seems to have contributed to the transfer of the seat of Jewish self-government from Jerusalem to Old Cairo. This shift, gradual rather than sudden, was supported by local Jewish leaders in Fustat, most of whom were immigrants from Palestine, Tunisia, and points farther west. The ageing Palestine Yeshiva found the need to ask for alms repeatedly, most often from the italian Jewish community.
Jews have always had charitable foundations. The Yeshivas are religious learning schools. And your point again was...? The Palestinian begging bowl is filled mainly by the West, whom they claim to despise, and murder with a certain regularity.... not by their Muslims brothers. In fact, the money the west gives to the Palestinians could be well-used by millions of other needy refugees in this world. Let the Muslims collect money and help the Palestinians instead of using the "Palestinian Issue" as a means of getting the west to pay the JIZYRA, the dhimmi-tax. Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and his messenger have forbidden, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. (34, 9:29). And in fact, there are two types of individuals allowed inside an Islamic State: the Muslim, and any member of the People of the Book. Buddhists, Hindus, or other kafirs need not apply. And if fact we don't much like Christians or Jews either, do we, Ashley? Except perhaps for their money.
concheet: let me help ashley: 005.051 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051 Ishaq:262 "Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Quran forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse.? Quran 5:51 "Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.? http://islamreview.blogspot.com/
Jewish charity to Jews. The Jerusalem Yeshiva have always had a begging bowl out. Ever since the main leaders of the Jewish faith moved out to Egypt the Jerusalem enclave has had to rely upon charity. I am an atheist an do not think that any religion is conducive to peace. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hindi, Sikhism, or any other religion is for the neurotic. I have great pleasure in not being a person of the book nor do i wish to be entered into any part of it. I am one that despises all religions. All four monotheisms that have come out of the desert have been nihilistic.
Hasabara take your preaching else where. What 242 really means is that the Israeli government will use weasel words to carry out pogroms in Palestine.
Poverty as part of renouncing the world is a common theme in Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity. As Jesus put it in Matthew 19:21 Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Begging as a means of allowing the religious/spiritual to live a religious/spiritual life is a time-honored tradition among many religions. No one requires anyone to give to the Buddhist monk or other monastic. It is a voluntary thing. Jews have always helped struggling Jews. That is one of the things that the religious community does. I really can't see your problem with this. Indeed, as I said, it is high time the Muslims provided the bulk of charity for their Muslim 'brothers' in Palestine. Those desert religions didn't spawn anywhere near as many murders as have atheistic power mongers like Stalin. Hitler in truth was an atheist as well, though he pretended to religion in order to influence the religious. The Roman Emperors and others wanted nothing to do with the desert religions either. They were Gods to themselves. Not being affiliated with a religion doesn't make you one iota better or brighter than someone who is. I can assure you that religion doesn't have a monopoly on neurotics, and being an atheist doesn't mean you aren't one. If you despise the desert religions because they are nihilistic, why is it that you seem to accept the idea of Islamic dominance over countries that support freedom of religion, such as in Israel...? Why would you be willing to enslave so many people, as the poor people of Iran are, for example, by not speaking out against the repressive Islamic regimes in the middle east?
Judaism is the religion that looks first and foremost at the religion of the recipient. Donating to charities has nothing to do with spirituality. Being an Atheist does not preclude being neurotic but being religious means that you definitely are neurotic. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all shared a messianic vision of spreading their form of political message. Turning Politics into a religion. One of the main Roman religions was Mithras. Which is a corruption of the Ahura Mazda or Zoroastrianism. When Iran decides to invade another country and oppress another people then I will speak out. Until then only Israel in in the position of invader and oppressor. Israel does not support freedom of religion. Israel uses every glib phrase in the book to deny any religious expression but Judaism. Sorry but I don't subscribe to the medieval conspiracy theory of the clash of civilisations.
pogroms of the palestinians ashley?? let us once again define "pogrom" so that ashley can then list the pogroms of the palestinians at the hands of the israelis. po·grom (p-grm, pgrm) n. An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pogrom fools like ashley use massacre, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, genocide, etc to hyperventilate their antisemitism. one nitwit, ashley, tried to compare the warsaw ghetto to gaza!!?? remarkable racist ignorance.
Wow po·grom (p-grm, pgrm) n. An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews. But I do note it does not say exclusively to Jews. Now whys that? Because a pogrom can be carried out against any ethnic group. http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=pogrom&title=21st again originally but still no exclusive rights http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/pogrom?view=uk still no exclusivity. so now there you have it pogrom can apply to any ethnic group. 1947 1948 1949 1950 and as you define a massacre as small as 5 deaths Nebi Musa Riotsften describes by Israelophiles as a massacre:- We can now add all dates or events that had greater than 5 deaths. December 1947 two villages in the central plain -- Deir Ayyub (Final ethnic cleansing by the Giv'ati and Sheva' (Seventh) brigades on March 6, 1948 renamed Mevo Choron) and Beit Affa (Final ethnic cleansing Operation Barak (lightening) Giv'ati Brigade's Second Battalion January 10, 194 -- were raided, and their panicked Palestinian inhabitants fled. Jewish leaders gave the order to drive out as many Palestinians as possible on March 10, 1948. The terror campaign ended six months later. http://www.palestineremembered.com/al-Ramla/Dayr-Ayyub/ http://www.palestineremembered.com/Gaza/Bayt-'Affa/index.html December 12 Bus bombings in Haifa and Ramla, by Jewish Militias December 12, al-Tira an Irgun operation. Terrorist raid by Irgun Zvai Leumi (IZL) raided the village of al-Tira in which there were 13 killed and 10 wounded villagers. http://www.palestineremembered.com/Haifa/al-Tira/ December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons. 13 December 1947: Irgun also burns down 100 Arab homes in Jaffa December 18, al-Khisas a Palmach operation. took place in al-Khisas near to the Syrian border and was carried out by Haganah militants, possibly from Palmach. Palmach claim it was in retaliation for casualties suffered in Safad and for the murder of a Jewish citizen by an Arab citizen near al-Khisas. Ten Palestinians were killed, five of them children. Five were wounded. December 30, Haifa Oil Refinery Irgun attack on Palestinian labourers waiting at the Haifa oil refinery gate. Grenade thrown into crowd of Arab Dock workers exploded killing 6 workers and wounding 42 Arab workers. January 1 1948, Balad al-Shaykh Haganah operation.The Haganah massively retaliated on the night of 31 December 1947 - 1 January 1948 raiding the villages of Balad al Sheikh and Hawassa, in which many of the refinery's workers lived. The raiding unit's orders were to 'kill maximum adult males'. The raiders penetrated to the centre of Balad al Sheikh, fired into and blew up houses, and pulled out adult males, and shot them. According to the HGS, 'the penetrating units... were forced to deviate from the line agreed upon and in a few cases hit women and children' after being fired upon from inside houses. The Haganah suffered two dead and two injured. Haganah reports put Arab casualties variously at 'about 70 killed', and 21 killed ('including two women and five children') and 41 injured. Benny Morris The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem Revisited Cambridge University Press 2004 ISBN 0-512-00967-7 , p. 101 February 14 1948, Sa'sa' village ambush in the Safad district Palmach operation. On February 15, 1948, a Palmach force entered the village during the night and, without resistance, planted explosives against some of the houses. Ten or more houses were totally or partially destroyed and 11 villagers were killed (5 of them small children). According to the official history of the Haganah, the village had been used as a base for Arab fighters. March 30th to 15th May 1948. The Coastal clearing operation undertaken by Haganah, expelling Palestinians from the coastal plain between Haifa and Jaffa. March 31 1948, Cairo-Haifa train bombing Lehi operation.
No links Hasbara. What's hard to understand? All your supposed facts no links. Quoting the bible where's the link Talking of Stalin where's the link Talking of Hitler where the link You're full of BS Hasbara1.
So tell me - is there agreement by the democratic forces on this forum as to what is more important?: 1) Is it what the non-voting authors on UNSC 242 said they meant when they drafted the resolutions? ... .... or .... 2) Is it what the majority of voting members said they understood from the documented text when they actually voted on the resolution? Because if there isn't, then the planet has spent a monstrous amount of nervous energy, taxpayer's money, Middle East blood (Jews and Palestinians), and jeopardy of world peace to find out that the supposedly clear principle of voting, a critical underpinning of the democratic process, is in fact totally irrelevant. If this is so, can I request a time-out so that I may say a last-ditch prayer for our planet.
"Non-voting authors"? What? I see you tried that Lie on the bottom page one; #8. The Authors mentioned on the first page of this string WERE all voting members- or delegates within. Lord Caradon, main author, was the British ambassador to the UN. Voted! Arthur Goldberg, Head of the US delegation. Voted! They certainly knew what it meant and are quoted. Kuznetsov, (Head of the Soviet delegation) who VOTED against it BECAUSE he also knew what it meant. How do you explain that? Arabs Soviet ally and supplier votes Against resolution that returns "all" Arab Land? I see throughout this string your incredible and stupefying denial.
when anything is said and there is a residual ambiguity then one should defer to what the authors of statement meant and not the spin of prejudiced parties. that is why the opinions of resolution 242 authors need to be considered. the authors of 242, Lord Caradon and Arthur Goldberg are needed for clarification. palestinefacts
