Nadene Goldfoot
Back to the 1967 lines is all Kerry can come up with . The long dormant plan of 2002 would be slightly modified by Kerry. How has not been explained. This is a plan which Saudi Arabia introduced and the 22-member Arab League had endorsed. It goes against everything that spells out security for Israel. Israel never went for the plan and the Palestinians want nothing changed in it which most likely spells doom for Israel. According to the Oregonian newspaper, the" basic parameters seem to be gaining traction as a framework for future talks between the Israelis and Palestinians." This makes my heart sink as I think of watching and listening to Netanyahu explain to Obama just why going back to the 67 lines is unthinkable for Israel today.
How can Kerry have the audacity to come up with this? This includes providing Israel with recognition throughout the Arab world This should be a given. It also asks for the pullout from territory taken in 1967. If the Arabs can't accept Israel's creation through the UN as a legal state with rights, then they do not plan to follow any of the rules and regulations. Obviously the explanation that Netanyahu gave on public TV went in and out of the Democratic party's ears without any understanding at all.
Let's look at what was going on in 1967. The Arabs objectives were solidified after the war at the Khartoum Summit Conference in August 1967. Arab leaders laid down 4 principles:
1. No peace with Israel
2. No negotiations with Israel
3. No recognition of Israel
4. Insistence on the rights of Palestinian people in their "own country." (which is fallacious). There never was a country of Palestine.
Their main goal has been directed towards bringing about the withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 lines by every means other than negotiations with Israel. What the Arab States have used since 1967 have not brought them any closer to their objective of forcing upon Israel a decision which is not acceptable to it until today with Kerry approaching with this impossible 11 year old plot that the Arabs like. This would say, "It's okay to attack Israel as we will lose nothing by it as the world stands behind us."
As former Major-General, then President Chaim Herzog wrote, "Israel's belief that the war had come to an end and that peace would now reign along the borders was soon dispelled.". It only took 3 weeks after the conclusion of hostilities, the first major incident happened on the Suez Canal.
The Great Powers have pressured Israel but Israel insists that this should be solved directly between the 2 sides and that an imposed settlement is no solution of it. #3 Recognition does not guarantee erasing numbers 1,2,and 4, either. Israel wants and expects "a just and lasting peace in which everyone can live in security. Using 242 written on 22 November 1967 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict. So where's the protection for Israel if this comes about? According to their word, they aim to destroy Israel. The Arab Governments and their supporters interpret the resolution as requiring a complete Israeli withdrawal. UN Mediator, Ambassador Jarring, submitted a proposal that Israel should withdraw to "the former international boundary between Egypt and the British Mandated territories of Palestine. His mission came to a halt in February 1971 with this proposal.
In 1968, Israel's population was 2,841,100, so was a little less in 1967. Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref 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." June 4th was the day Israel faced down Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. It faced in 1967 the Arab forces 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft which formed a ring around Israel. Jordan's Hussein was told that if he stayed out of the fight he would not be attacked unless he initiated hostilities, but he ordered the shelling of West Jerusalem. Syrian and Iraqi troops attacked Israel's northern frontier. In a week, Israel was in a position to march on Cairo, Damascus and Amman. A cease-fire was invoked on June 10th.
The United States could do nothing. They couldn't stop Nasser or the other Arab states. The war began on June 5th and the State Department announced: "Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed." To top it off, Johnson imposed an arms embargo on France, who was Israel's arms supplier. At the same time, the Soviets were supplying massive amounts of arms to the Arabs. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were adding their troops and arms to the Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian fronts. When the war ended in 6 days, President Johnson said, "Certainly, troops must be withdrawn; but there must also be recognized rights of national life, progress in solving the refugee problem, freedom of innocent maritime passage, limitation of the arms race and respect for political independence and territorial integrity. Who supplies the most weapons to Egypt today when it is under the government of the Muslim Brotherhood? The USA.
Kerry is going along with 242 pretty much which requires Israel's total, unconditional withdrawal from the "occupied" territories", of which Israel isn't occupying Gaza or Judea and Samaria, unless withdrawal means to force Israelis to leave their cities and homes in Judea and Samaria. I ask Kerry then, why is it that Israel doesn't ask Arabs to leave Israel? Why can't Jews stay in Judea and Samaria if they so wish? What's fair for the goose is fair also for the gander. Yet Arafat, in accepting 242 and 338, inserted his clarification of his 3 principals;
1. A Palestinian State
2. Self-determination
3. The right of return.
The Likud position at that time, with Benjamin Begin as speaker, said that by giving up the Sinai, they did withdraw from 91% of the territories and thereby fulfilled its obligation under 242. The question asks if Israel has to give up territory it still holds and Begin thought a compromise was possible. The position that Israel must withdraw from all the territories is inconsistent with resolution 242. Since then, Israel withdrew from Gaza in the name of peace all its Israeli occupants much to the shock and awe of Israel since it has become a shooting center upon southern Israel. Yet all the people who are pushing Israel to withdraw to the 67 lines did nothing about the attacks; no outcry, no complaining in the UN, no meetings or punishments. The attacks have been the heaviest since 2005 till today.
Resource: Oregonian Newspaper page A5, News update: Mideast peace efforts, by AP.
Myths and Facts, a concise record of the Arab-Israeli conflict by Mitchell G. Bard and Joel Himelfarb page 52-70 Six Day War
Facts About Israel, Division of Information, Ministry for foreign affairs, Jerusalem, page 46-49
Back to the 1967 lines is all Kerry can come up with . The long dormant plan of 2002 would be slightly modified by Kerry. How has not been explained. This is a plan which Saudi Arabia introduced and the 22-member Arab League had endorsed. It goes against everything that spells out security for Israel. Israel never went for the plan and the Palestinians want nothing changed in it which most likely spells doom for Israel. According to the Oregonian newspaper, the" basic parameters seem to be gaining traction as a framework for future talks between the Israelis and Palestinians." This makes my heart sink as I think of watching and listening to Netanyahu explain to Obama just why going back to the 67 lines is unthinkable for Israel today.
How can Kerry have the audacity to come up with this? This includes providing Israel with recognition throughout the Arab world This should be a given. It also asks for the pullout from territory taken in 1967. If the Arabs can't accept Israel's creation through the UN as a legal state with rights, then they do not plan to follow any of the rules and regulations. Obviously the explanation that Netanyahu gave on public TV went in and out of the Democratic party's ears without any understanding at all.
Let's look at what was going on in 1967. The Arabs objectives were solidified after the war at the Khartoum Summit Conference in August 1967. Arab leaders laid down 4 principles:
1. No peace with Israel
2. No negotiations with Israel
3. No recognition of Israel
4. Insistence on the rights of Palestinian people in their "own country." (which is fallacious). There never was a country of Palestine.
Their main goal has been directed towards bringing about the withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 lines by every means other than negotiations with Israel. What the Arab States have used since 1967 have not brought them any closer to their objective of forcing upon Israel a decision which is not acceptable to it until today with Kerry approaching with this impossible 11 year old plot that the Arabs like. This would say, "It's okay to attack Israel as we will lose nothing by it as the world stands behind us."
As former Major-General, then President Chaim Herzog wrote, "Israel's belief that the war had come to an end and that peace would now reign along the borders was soon dispelled.". It only took 3 weeks after the conclusion of hostilities, the first major incident happened on the Suez Canal.
The Great Powers have pressured Israel but Israel insists that this should be solved directly between the 2 sides and that an imposed settlement is no solution of it. #3 Recognition does not guarantee erasing numbers 1,2,and 4, either. Israel wants and expects "a just and lasting peace in which everyone can live in security. Using 242 written on 22 November 1967 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict. So where's the protection for Israel if this comes about? According to their word, they aim to destroy Israel. The Arab Governments and their supporters interpret the resolution as requiring a complete Israeli withdrawal. UN Mediator, Ambassador Jarring, submitted a proposal that Israel should withdraw to "the former international boundary between Egypt and the British Mandated territories of Palestine. His mission came to a halt in February 1971 with this proposal.
In 1968, Israel's population was 2,841,100, so was a little less in 1967. Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref 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." June 4th was the day Israel faced down Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. It faced in 1967 the Arab forces 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft which formed a ring around Israel. Jordan's Hussein was told that if he stayed out of the fight he would not be attacked unless he initiated hostilities, but he ordered the shelling of West Jerusalem. Syrian and Iraqi troops attacked Israel's northern frontier. In a week, Israel was in a position to march on Cairo, Damascus and Amman. A cease-fire was invoked on June 10th.
The United States could do nothing. They couldn't stop Nasser or the other Arab states. The war began on June 5th and the State Department announced: "Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed." To top it off, Johnson imposed an arms embargo on France, who was Israel's arms supplier. At the same time, the Soviets were supplying massive amounts of arms to the Arabs. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were adding their troops and arms to the Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian fronts. When the war ended in 6 days, President Johnson said, "Certainly, troops must be withdrawn; but there must also be recognized rights of national life, progress in solving the refugee problem, freedom of innocent maritime passage, limitation of the arms race and respect for political independence and territorial integrity. Who supplies the most weapons to Egypt today when it is under the government of the Muslim Brotherhood? The USA.
Kerry is going along with 242 pretty much which requires Israel's total, unconditional withdrawal from the "occupied" territories", of which Israel isn't occupying Gaza or Judea and Samaria, unless withdrawal means to force Israelis to leave their cities and homes in Judea and Samaria. I ask Kerry then, why is it that Israel doesn't ask Arabs to leave Israel? Why can't Jews stay in Judea and Samaria if they so wish? What's fair for the goose is fair also for the gander. Yet Arafat, in accepting 242 and 338, inserted his clarification of his 3 principals;
1. A Palestinian State
2. Self-determination
3. The right of return.
The Likud position at that time, with Benjamin Begin as speaker, said that by giving up the Sinai, they did withdraw from 91% of the territories and thereby fulfilled its obligation under 242. The question asks if Israel has to give up territory it still holds and Begin thought a compromise was possible. The position that Israel must withdraw from all the territories is inconsistent with resolution 242. Since then, Israel withdrew from Gaza in the name of peace all its Israeli occupants much to the shock and awe of Israel since it has become a shooting center upon southern Israel. Yet all the people who are pushing Israel to withdraw to the 67 lines did nothing about the attacks; no outcry, no complaining in the UN, no meetings or punishments. The attacks have been the heaviest since 2005 till today.
Resource: Oregonian Newspaper page A5, News update: Mideast peace efforts, by AP.
Myths and Facts, a concise record of the Arab-Israeli conflict by Mitchell G. Bard and Joel Himelfarb page 52-70 Six Day War
Facts About Israel, Division of Information, Ministry for foreign affairs, Jerusalem, page 46-49
No comments:
Post a Comment