Real land for peace offers please. An ultimatum based on indefensible borders and the right of return turning Israel into an arab majority state is nothing else but another attempt to wipe Israel off the map that I was talking about in my previous post. Arab proposals demanding that Israel give up everything and accept 7 million arabs into the country and make them citizens in exchange for hot air won't be accepted going forward either. Once arabs are serious about peace and are willing to take Israel's security and ethnic concerns into account they will find a willing and generous partner. Don't take my word for it though, ask Jordan or Egypt...and wake me up when the arab world is truly ready to live with an Israel in their midst.
Borat, do you know anything about negotiating tactics? They were offers to enter into dialogue or they could have been turned into such offers. They were all based on 242: FACT 1 Israel rejected them all ... the offers, that is. That was a flagrant violation even of what the Zionist apologists claim "242" is all about; a negotiation of boundaries so as to achieve peace. Your excuse amounts to Israel being allowed to hold onto territories conquered by war simply by refusing any attempt to invoke "242" without any justification being required. TOTALLY REJECTED!!!.
Yeah, we get it; and just like a good propagandist you're trying to convince us that Israel never instigated any aggression, and only ever reacted? Try harder, it isn't working.
snakestretcher, Borat, et at, On the issue of "atrocities," neither side has clean hands; and the instigator in such matters makes no difference. On the issue of "terror attacks," that is somewhat subjective. However, if you use the Arab Convention definition of "terrorism," you will find that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has the clear advantage. Over time, the HoAP has advanced both individual and collective criminal agenda "to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources." (COMMENT) The same can be said for act of aggression. Although this is based on orders of magnitude and sustained temporal lethality. The blockade of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for security purposes is a much different level of intensity (lower) and magnitude [(geo-political involvement)(much much smaller)] then say the 1973 Yom Kipper Arab Sneak Attack (led by Egypt and Syria against Israel; with additional weapons and financing from Jordan, Iraq, and several other Arab states) with the engagement of five Egyptian Divisions and three (+) Syrian Divisions, and combat support elements. This plays a significant role in how war reparations, civil restitution, and claim settlements are hammered out in peace negotiations. Hamas places the start of the conflict with the emergence of Izz ad-din al-Qassam and the Palestinian Black Hand; going back to the late 1920's and mid 1930's. Trading lists and pointing fingers is not constructive. Most Respectfully, R
LOL are you for real? LOL, go back and re-read all KK's posts before accusing me, he is the one posting all that absurd nonsense blaming absolutely every single development in the Middle East on Israel. That being said the big picture of the conflict is quite clear. The Arab world wants to wipe Israel off the map, not the other way around.
And you have failed utterly to show that the list of 14 mega-aggressions was not due to Israel. All you can deliver is "Wasn't". I suggested to you before that you refute my claim that Israel was totally responsible for the breaking of the Habib ceasefire in 1982 and the slaughter of some 20 000. You went into wartime radio silence, only to pop up now with another "Wasn't". Underwhelming wouldn't you say ..... (LOL)
Go read P.M. Netanyahu's speech @ Bar Ilan University... where he divulges that he is forced to take other step because of Abu Mazen intransigence. This brought me to Tzafrir Ronen Blog of which I am posting here in his name. The Secret All the Arabs Know At the Annapolis Conference, George Bush spoke about his vision regarding the virtues of two nations for two peoples. One of those peoples has a clear identity – the Jewish People. Yet it would be interesting to know the identity of that second people: Already in 1977, one of the central spokesman of that "second people", a member of P.L.O. leadership, Zahir Muhsein, the leader of the al-Sa'iqa Organization, revealed the truth in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." Are you in shock? If the Palestinian People does not exist, what does exist? Arabs who live in Eretz Yisrael and who have disguised themselves as "Palestinians" for fraudulent purposes. "Only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel," in Muhsein's words. A fraud so successful that even George Bush can be found seeking a state for that fraud! Do you think Zahir Muhsein is alone? This transparent fraud about the so-called existence of Palestine is revealed to us by all the Arabs' leaders: In 1974, the late Syrian President, Hafez al-Assad, declared: "It would be fitting for us to mention to the responsible Israeli authorities that we view Palestine not just as an inseparable part of the Arab nation, but as a part of Southern Syria." In 1987, he reiterated himself at a conference in Amman, "A country named 'Palestine' has never existed." Jordanian King Hussein responded, "The appearance of the national Palestinian persona serves as a response to Israel's claim that Palestine is Jewish." Yet the prize goes to Arafat who in 1970, with candid simplicity, told the reporter Arianna Palazzi: "The question of borders doesn't interest us… From the Arab standpoint, we mustn't talk about borders. Palestine is nothing but a drop in an enormous ocean. Our nation is the Arabic nation that stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea and beyond it….. The P.L.O. is fighting Israel in the name of Pan-Arabism. What you call "Jordan" is nothing more than Palestine."
I've showed it hundreds of times, you keep repeating the same absurd nonsense you came up with, ignoring arab terror, arab wars, rocket attacks, arab rejection of the partition, arab rejection of Israel's right to exist and arab unwavering commitment to wiping Israel off the map.Who do you think you are kidding? All that nonsense you keep posting here is debunked in the books of new historians, let alone mainstream ones.
How come Avi Shlaim is better than Shmuel Katz in your eyes pray tell? Avi Shlaim’s Anti-Israel Slime The name Avi Shlaim may not be widely known on the street, but in the United Kingdom, and particularly in academic settings, it is. An emeritus professor of international relations at Oxford University, he has been a prodigious writer on the Middle East. When it comes to Israel, where he once lived, Shlaim can barely contain himself, throwing any semblance of scholarship to the wind and working himself into a lather at its mere mention. Take, for example, his op-ed in The Independent, a British daily, earlier this week. Entitled “Obama must stand up to Netanyahu,” and published on the day that President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu met in the White House, Shlaim breathlessly mined the English language for ever more vituperative things to say about Israel and its leadership. Here are some of the results: Benjamin Netanyahu is “a bellicose, right-wing Israeli nationalist, a rejectionist… and a reactionary.” His government is “the most aggressively right-wing, diplomatically intransigent, and overtly racist government in Israel’s history.” It is a government of “militant nationalists.” It “is in danger of drifting towards fascism.” He is “a jimcrack politician.” He is “the war-monger in chief.” Isn’t that the same Netanyahu who, whatever his other alleged faults might be, has moved his Likud Party to accept a Palestinian state, introduced a partial freeze on settlements as a goodwill gesture to restart peace talks with the Palestinians, and played a part in the economic revival of the West Bank and security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority? Oh, and Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, according to Shlaim, “regards diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.” Moreover, he is a “bitkhonist, a security-ist who wants 100 percent security for Israel which means zero security for the Palestinians.” Isn’t that perchance the same Barak who, as prime minister, collaborated with President Clinton to offer Yasir Arafat a viable Palestinian state and the chance for enduring peace? In fact, Shlaim has to draw from other things he’s written, since the English language apparently is not rich enough for ever new expressions of outrage. In a 2010 edition of The Antonian, the newsletter of St. Antony’s College (Oxford), he wrote, in another brutal assault on Israel, that “Netanyahu is like a man who, while negotiating the division of a pizza, continues to eat it.” In the Independent op-ed, he said “He (Netanyahu) is like a man who pretends to negotiate the division of a pizza while continuing to gobble it.” Now, again, please bear in mind that we’re not just talking about anyone here, but about an emeritus professor at Oxford University. He has taught countless students from around the world and supervised who-knows-how-many dissertations. And we’re also talking about a widely-read newspaper in Britain that opted to publish this – let’s call it by its proper name – screed. At a time when the U.S. and Israeli leaders meet in Washington to discuss the ominous challenge of Iran’s nuclear program, Shlaim assails Israel for every alleged misdeed, yet, oddly, or perhaps tellingly, fails to address the Iran question. Well, not exactly. He does claim Israel is trying “to drag America into a dangerous confrontation,” but doesn’t offer any solution of his own. That might suggest he either doesn’t believe Iran has a nuclear program – which would put him at odds with the U.S. and European governments, not to mention the International Atomic Energy Agency – or he doesn’t feel it poses a threat to anyone. Wait, there is one more possibility. He might actually welcome the program as a response to the reviled Israel. Which is it? And he also reveals his “penetrating” insights when he declares that “the main threat to regional stability is not Iran but the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.” Mind you, Iran is moving headlong towards nuclear-weapons capability and delivery systems, Arab neighbors are frightened to death, and all Shlaim sees is the Israeli occupation as the main threat to the Middle East. President Obama declares that a nuclear-armed Iran would trigger a new arms race in the volatile Middle East, strengthen the hand of terrorist groups, and give Tehran a stranglehold on a good chunk of the world’s oil supply, but all Shlaim sees is the occupation. The Sunni-Shiite rift is as pronounced as ever, but all Shlaim sees is the occupation. Syria is butchering its own people right and left, but all Shalim sees is the occupation. Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous country, is gripped by the mano-a-mano struggle for power between the military and the Islamists, and all Shlaim sees is the occupation. The Arab world, according to the Arab Human Development Index, faces profound freedom, knowledge, and gender deficits, which put it way behind much of the rest of the world, but all Shlaim sees is the occupation. And four consecutive Israeli prime ministers, including his arch-nemeses, Netanyahu and Barak, have embraced a two-state plan, only to be rebuffed by Palestinian leaders, but all Shlaim sees is the occupation. I’m lucky, I suppose. When I was at Oxford, I studied Soviet matters and, fortunately, had distinguished, clear-headed professors. But pity the students who have been exposed to this kind of poisoned thinking. And pity the readers of The Independent who are invited to read such drivel, all the more during a momentous week in Middle East and U.S.-Israeli diplomacy, when sober analysis is sorely needed. As my beloved grandmother used to say, what’s the world coming to? Shmuel Katz http://www.shmuelkatz.com/
Then why are you so vigorously avoiding proving that the PLO broke the ceasefire on various occasions during 1982 while the PLO was "(Quote Israeli historian Porath) Stubbornly adhering to it" and so studiously avoiding refuting my claim (fully referenced) that "the Israelis were the good guys" when they invaded Lebanon.in 1982 is a BS Zionist myth? Wriggle .... wriggle .... wriggle .... wriggle ... or as you are so fond of saying ..... "LOL". When you are finished with that, prove that the Israelis did not break the ceasefire in November 2008. You quoted a tunnel under Israeli territory as on of your "hundreds of proofs". You were challenged, but you maintain wartime radio silence in responding. Do you not realise just how much of a Jello character your "proofs" therefore have? And when you are finished with that (... "LOL" ... we know that you will never even try) off you go to explain why you claim that the Arab countries invaded Israel in 1973. And when you are finished .... .................. need I continue? BORAT .... you have proved NOTHING!!!! You rely on proving that no-one has called an invasion by its name but referred to it as an "incident". Do you realise how POWERFUL your argument is in disproving the 14 Israeli aggressions? It was pathetic. Borat, does it not occur to you that we can see how DESPERATELY you are avoiding actually getting close to the historicam facts? Does it not occur to you that realying on "Cause I say so" just illuminates in a glaring spotlight how fragile your "Israel never attacks; Israel just retaliates" MYTHs are. They crumble every day, and you silence just serves to amplify that.
Why are you afraid to respond honestly to my post, and have to dredge up yet another deflection? WHY, HB? Because your quiver is empty. Your MYTHs are crumbling. Gilos, Drew, and Jonsa know it. The other three are still in denial.
Actually he's doing fine Klip, better than you anyhow as I'm still waiting for the terms of that ceasefire you failed to produce as well as the numbers for the amount of land individual-Palestinians owned. No sense in moving on with you if you can't back your own points and, maybe the others can lower themselves to debate with somebody like that but I certainly can't take you seriously if you just come out with stuff you can't back up. Hell, even you humor is lacking these days.
1) Habib ceasefire. It was verbal you were shown that. Habib confirmed the terms to Sharon. You were shown that also. You most recent response = Wriggle wriggle wriggle, because you have all that is pertinent of the issue. I don't support phishing. 2) Regarding the land that the Palestinian's owned, when you can show me that that is pertinent to sovereign possession of statehood, it will become pertinent. Until then it is irrelevant. = All pertinent issues taken care of. NEXT!!
And you confirmed the PLO were following the UN ceasefire. I showed you that and, the UN ceasefire has terms that can be shown and proven that the PLO broke - you were shown that. As for the terms of the Habib ceasefire, what were they Klip? Kat got your tongue? I do have all I need Klip - you don't have the terms of the Habib ceasefire so make up whatever story you wish and then say it was a term of the Habib ceasefire. Here, part of the Habib ceasefire called for the PLO to cease all attacks on Israel and to ensure they wear their underwear on their head for a year until they all melt their AKs into menorahs. It's in the Habib ceasefire. Quite relevant when you consider where the land was owned and considering the Palestinians didn't own squat as you have been unable to show us so it is quite logical for the Jews to be placed in the land they were slated for in 181. Nope. As long as you are inventing things out of thin air, the terms of the Habib ceasefire called on the PLO to convert to Judaism. They broke that one as well. It was a verbal agreement and no proof exists but it's true. Well, just as true as your silly *ssed contention anyhow. NEXT! X 10
So you failed yet again to show that owning surface title grants you the right to ploitical sovereignty over that territory. I knew you would fail, because we all know that that stale old Zionist MYTH is utter BS. I can't even say "Nice try" because it was truly a pathetic position from the start. Even your contrived verb "slated" shows how few scraps there are in the bottom of the barrel. There was no "slating" in "181", Drew, It was then and still remains a recommendation to Britain. Nothing more and nothing less. Read it. Facts will set you free. So the Palestine ownership of surface title was, is, and remains irrelevant. You can take that to HBendor's bank. And I know it for a fact just as I know that you two cannot possibly claim a new state because you own a pice of North American real estate. What a farce!! Typical of empty quivers.
Here is one last try to bring a bit of respect for historical facts to you, Drew. It provides you (?) with an understanding as to why there is no documented Habib ceasefire, but also why there was no doubt at the time as to what the ceasefire arrangement involved: Cursed is the Peacemaker: The American Diplomat Versus the Israeli General, Beirut 1982 by John Boykin (2002) - Philip Habib's biography Get it now, Drew? The Israelis knew what the Habib "deal" was. Even Sharon knew. So did the PLO. So did Habib. So did the UN. In fact all the players knew. And it was not UNSC 422 - there were instead some problems with it. But Begin had agreed to it. And the PLO stuck doggedly to the arrangement and the Israelis broke it ... numerous times. And that is why Lebanon 1982 it is on my list as one of Israel's 14 major aggressions, and why no-one can suggest that the PLO broke it. Yet the Zionists keep on claiming - utterly falsely as the UNIFIL records quoted and referenced in this thread so clearly show - that Israel attacked because the PLO was attacking the north of their country. Just like they continue to do regarding Hamas and Gaza in 2008 and 2012. But they can only do so when their audience does not know that their claims are a distortion of history. Correcting those distortions is a hobby of mine. I hate bent history passing as FACT. MYTHS EXPOSED!!!
Ya ok Klip, have to say you already shot yourself in the foot long time ago by chasing the wrong ceasefire which you at one time renamed to the "Habib Understanding" and now the "Handshake" but you were bang on a long time ago with .... So now you want to change the "cease-fire called for by the Security Council" into the "Habib Handshake" huh? Yep, looks like they were very very intent on not doing just that what with the couple hundred or so attacks on Israel and so, we end up with Israel being in abeyance of the ceasefire they were following and the PLO not on the one they were but rather obeying a handshake that they never ever shook on. Now, we can keep going on with your Habib Handshake/Understanding/Ceasefire or whatever which never occurred as per your own source which never even meet with the PLO to agree on but in reality, as you quoted, the PLO had assured him that it would observe the cease-fire called for by the Security Council. Did the Security Council allow for the PLO to kill Israeli Civilians in that ceasefire? Please show us the clause which states the PLO can carry out suicide attacks on Israeli Civilians Klip or just remain as you are - with no facts and a self depreciating sense of humor which allows for us to rip your hubris to shreds at will. Moving on; Thought we went over this already Klip. So, hope the lack of memory you have will not continue for more than the month it has already I venture forth yet again - how much did the Palestinians individually own Klip? After all, you thought it was very impotent to cement how much the Jews owned when you asked.... so let's see how much the Palestinians owned. What's the matter Klip, you can't take questions about facts? Well, we know Jews owned more than the Palestinians did and, when taken into consideration, the areas in which they owned played a great part in the land they were awarded by 181 which was the basis for Israeli statehood. So, got any real facts today or just more running away on tangents? I'd say something like I'm tired of asking the same questions but really, it is sort of a chortle seeing you wriggle around when really, the Habbib Handshake and the fact you can't even show the Palestinians owned squat have anything to do with nothing but you certainly are on a hook - line and sinker!
DrewBedson, klipkap, et al, I fail to see where this is going. You both seem to understand and agree that the "ownership" of the land (a real estate concept) has nothing to do with "sovereignty" (a geo-political concept)? So where are we on the issue? The Special Committee made a recommendation on Partition. The General Assembly Agreed. The Security Council via the UN Palestine Commission implemented. The Arab Higher Committee (Arab League) rejected and opted for invasion and war. The Jewish Agency (Israel) accepted and declared independence IAW the GA resolution; the defenders. Cease-fire and Armistice established (Israeli favor). Under Arab Provocation, there is a 1967 war. (Israeli favor - Occupied Territories) Under Arab Provocation, there is the 1973 Sneak Attack. (Israeli favor - Occupied Territories) Palestinians Declare 1988 Independence and recognize the legitimacy of GA/RES/181(II). Between the 1967 War and the 1973 War, the Palestinians form more Jihadist and Fedayeen terrorist organizations. There is a 1988 declaration of independence by the PLO for the State of Palestine. The various factions argue over the implication. In the mean time --- Israel establishes a Peace Treaty with Egypt and a Peace Treaty with Jordan. The Palestinians, still --- to this day, argue over who represents the Palestinian People. (REMEMBERING THAT) So, where are we on this issue? Most Respectfully, R
So, notwithstanding Drews attempted obfuscations, we have seen that the Israelis, the PLO, Habib himself, the UN Secretary General, the Americans, the Israeli press and all subsequent historians and analysts knew that the Habib ceasefire was the only game in town regarding the PLO in Lebanon. This was the agreement that was being followed, and Habib had made it abundantly clear that, in contrast to UN Security Council resolution 422, the ceasefire was confined to cross-border attacks along the Lebanese boundary and did not included attacks on Israel from other places. It seems that Drew is determined to ignore this critical difference and I am not going to try for a 4th time to show him his logical fallacy. So, indeed, moving on ..... Israel could therefore not legitimately invade Lebanon unless the PLO could be provoked into returning to its Pre-ceasefire barrage on northern Israel. And this caused the Zionist leaders untold headaches, because as much as they provoked Arafat, he refused to fall into their obvious trap. He refused to return to the "pre-Habib" days. And the reason is, as we have seen from the detailed UNIFIL reports that I referenced, that once the ceasefire was firmly in place any retaliatorycross-border fire from the PLO, of which there were not many, never mind the hundreds quoted by Drew, was short-lived and could be clearly traced back to prior Israeli attacks. In other words the detailed observer reports confirmed Israeli historian Poraths observations that the PLO was stubbornly adhering to the negotiated ceasefire that was in place. Habib himself commented on this. And that observance of the ceasefire by the PLO is why Begin had to rely on an attempted assassination in London as his casus belli to invade Lebanon. If Drews supposition were correct, any attack from Jordan, Syria or Gaza on Israel would have sufficed .... if PLO linked. Begin was becoming incredibly frustrated by the constraints on attacks on Lebanon that he had agreed to with Habib. He had presumed that the PLO would quickly return to their old ways, but he had been wrong. So he had to scrape deep into the recesses of the barrel to find an excuse. And as we have seen, it was an incredibly lame excuse. Anyone not suffering from Isaiah 42:20 can see clearly that the Abu Nidal group who perpetrated that attempted assassination in London had nothing to do with the PLO. They had split from the PLO 8 years previously; they were based in Syria and not Lebanon; they were in fact at the same time trying to assassinate senior PLO leaders. It was laughable of Begin to claim that it had been a PLO action. So why did Begin decide to give Sharon the green light? Why expose Israel to the indignity of having to depend on the lies about the hundreds of attacks on Israel from Lebanon during the ceasefire prior to the June 1982 invasion? And the reason is that his Minister of Defence was not going to let a little thing like legality and publicised agreement by the Israeli leader get in the way of a war that he, Sharon, lusted after. I have just finished reading Habibs biography, and for the first time Ariel Sharons blood-thirstiness became fully clear to me. He lied to the Knesset. He lied to Begin. And, worst of all, he lied to the IDF soldiers and hundreds died as a result. He was later elected Prime Minister of Israel. He, Sharon, is the reason why Hezbollah exists as prominently as it does. Cursed is the Peacemaker: The American Diplomat Versus the Israeli General, Beirut 1982 by John Boykin (2002) I am now busy with the English translation of Israels Lebanon War, by Zeev Schiff and Ehud Yaari, two eminent Israeli authors and political analysts, which a friend lent to me, and after the first two chapters it is clear that the two books march in lock-step. Over the next few days I will provide excerpt from these books to show exactly how the 1982 Lebanon invasion, the most gory and callous of all of Israels cross-border aggressions, came to reach such a horrendous scale, truly a war crime in most rational thinkers eyes IF they knew the truth and were willing to acknowledge it. So, Borat, Drew and HB, if you were to read these books, and combine it with the UNIFIL reports, then . Nah . Never mind.
Well your source said ....... "the PLO had assured him that it would observe the cease-fire called for by the Security Council." Guess your sources must be lying.
Once again sincere thanks for a post that respects FACTs. Before I can meaningfully give you my view as to where we are, I need to ask two questions … not as a Strawman deflection …. But as a way to tease out how much we really know about those critical 1947/1948 proceedings: 1) UN General Assembly resolution 181 was not approval of the UNSCOP recommendation. Instead, “181” was itself a recommendation to Britain, as the holder of the Mandate, the international law applicable to Palestine until the Mandate ended. It was a recommendation to Britain of a future course of action. As many have pointed out, the UNGA is not empowered to make binding approvals other than those regarding UN membership. Only Britain’s full and unqualified acceptance of those recommendations could give “181” any legal impetus. So here is the first series of interrelated questions: In what format and by what documentation did Britain accept the “181” recommendation? Was it a complete acceptance? Was it unequivocal? If not, what did was the significance of Britain’s position. <For instance, did Britain accept the Palestine Commission (or the Security Council for that matter) as having any rights? All rights? Conditional rights? 2) If Britain did not fully endorse “181”, what remained unendorsed in international law? And most importantly, what was the status of Palestine after 15th November. I am fully aware that the USA and the USSR recognised the Jewish State, but that means squat in legal terms. We all know full well that those two countries each had one overriding ambition in mind and it had nothing to do with the UN Charter. In other words, what happened to the Mandate which up until then was the supreme law governing Palestine? I have a number of other issues with your bulleted with which I disagree, but until mwe can tease out the underlying status of who-said-what-about-what, that “approvals”, “recognitions”, “declarations”, all mean squat. Hoping for a sympathetic ear to the fundamentals. KK - - - Updated - - - Not at all. The ceasefire called for by the Security Council was that negotiated by Habib. The Secretary General of the UN and the President of the Security Council both acknowledged that outcome. That is clear to all ... well, almost all, with the exception of a few on this forum ... Isaiah 42:20
At last! The UN ceasefire which you admit the PLO was following called for attacks on Israel to stop. They did not and hence, Israel, faced with a broken UN ceasefire, invaded. Well done Klip Klap!
Not quite, Drew ... and I believe that you know it. Habib was offered by Reagan to negotiate the ceasefire. He did so under difficult conditions. Obviously he did not achieve what UN 422 called for. He acieved a compromise aimed at stopping the two-way conflict across the Lebanese border. Are you suggesting that that achievement should have been rejected? Well, luckily for the locals wiser heads prevailed at the time. Begin accepted it. So did the PLO. So did the USA. And the Habib ceasefire DID NOT call ... as you put it .... "attacks on Israel to stop". That is NOT what Begin accepted. Habib was clear on that. You were shown the key conditions. Right ... I have had enough of your trolling. NEXT!!
