Doc's Talk: Jihad and U.S. Intelligence Resources

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Jihad and U.S. Intelligence Resources

Jeffrey Imm

How could the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence authorize "the largest funding increase in the base Intelligence Budget in history", but refuse to include an amendment that calls for identifying the Jihadist enemy we fight? But that is precisely what happened on May 8. On May 8, Congressman Peter Hoekstra attempted to strike a blow for reason and sanity in the war against global jihadism, by making the rational and consistent definition of our enemy a priority in allocating budget resources for U.S. intelligence programs. Specifically, Congressman Hoekstra was seeking an amendment that "would prohibit the intelligence community from adopting speech codes that encumber accurately describing the radical jihadist terrorists that attacked America and continue to threaten the homeland."

A majority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed, and Congressman Hoekstra's Intelligence budget amendment on this issue was rejected. To be specific, Congressman Hoekstra states that his amendment was "rejected by committee Democrats". Certainly those 12 members of this Committee should clarify their position. Is it true that the majority of Congressmen Reyes, Boswell, Cramer, Holt, Ruppersberger, Tierney, Thompson, Langevin, Murphy, Schiff, Congresswomen Eshoo and Schakowsky, are not concerned about defining the Jihadist enemy? This is a far more disturbing development than the recent DHS and NCTC memos themselves.

Clearly the American people need an accounting of who voted against this amendment. The members of this House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (of any party) who rejected this amendment have an obligation to inform the American people why they do not view defining the Jihadist enemy as a priority in authorizing funding for intelligence operations. American citizens have a responsibility to contact these members and get an explanation as to why the consistent understanding of the jihadist enemy is not a priority in our intelligence operations, according to House Committee members who voted against the Hoekstra amendment. Americans concerned about jihad should take action and register their concern to these Congressmen and Congresswomen.

Why the Intelligence Amendment on Jihadism Was So Important

The failure to clearly identify America's enemy is a symptom of the larger failure to develop an overall blueprint strategy to expand on the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) - and develop a definition of the enemy and comprehensive strategy to defeat them. While most of the focus in the media and political leadership remains on debating individual tactical operations, AP and UPI recently reported about efforts of National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) groups to redefine the enemy as anything but "jihadists", as well as telling U.S. government employees not to use any references to "jihad", "Islamic", "Islamist", "mujahadeen", "caliphate", etc. - when discussing the enemy. On April 24, AP reported that the U.S. State Department officially authorized these memoranda on terminology for distribution to U.S. government employees.

Since the initial AP report on this story, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has released a January 2008 DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties memorandum on terminology to use in defining the enemy based on recommendations from American Muslim "experts" and a March 2008 NCTC memorandum on guidance from NCTC's Extremist Messaging Branch as to terms to use in defining the enemy.

Since the initial reports, there have been numerous reports and commentary on the illogic of banning "jihad" from America's lexicon in describing the enemy. Just two days earlier on May 6 at the House Rayburn Building, Dr. Walid Phares was addressing this very issue on the "War of Ideas" and the vital need to effectively define the threat of Jihadism, which he has also addressed in his book "The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad".

On May 8, no doubt Congressman Hoekstra (like many of us) was wondering what on earth the Civil Rights department of DHS and the Extremist Messaging Branch of NCTC was doing in making war policy and redefining the enemy as something other than jihadists. Per Congressman Hoekstra: "Al-Qaeda knows point blank that they want to kill Americans. How sad is it that as we approach the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we are still debating how to define our enemy?" How sad and inexcusable, indeed.

The House Intelligence Committee's Decision

The Intelligence Bill being reviewed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was not any routine legislation. As described in the Committee's May 8 press release:
-- "the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence approved the Fiscal Year 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act (H.R. 5959), authorizing the largest funding increase in the base Intelligence Budget in history. The bill passed the Committee by voice vote and now goes to the full House for consideration."

While the majority of the Committee was unconcerned about defining the Jihadist enemy, it was concerned about other issues:
-- "funding to understand the impact of climate change on national and energy security"

How can the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence believe that "global warming" is more important to American taxpayer funding of intelligence operations than defining the Jihadist enemy? Has complacency about the Jihadist enemy gotten that severe, even among our elected representatives?

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman, Congressman Silvestre Reyes, will no doubt be remembered for his confusion about Al-Qaeda. It was Congressman Silvestre Reyes who demonstrated during an interview with Congressional Quarterly in December 2006, that he had no idea as to whether Al-Qaeda's ideology was based on Sunni or Shiite Islam. Per Chairman Reyes, Al-Qaeda is "[p]redominantly — probably Shiite", when it is Sunni-based. (Not surprisingly, Chairman Reyes didn't know what Islamic ideology Hezbollah was based on either.) Is it possible that the majority of Congressman Reyes' Intelligence Committee don't understand Jihad either?

Congressman Hoekstra's amendment was to ensure that intelligence program funding would reflect a coherent and consistent definition of the jihadist enemy. But apparently that was just too much common sense for the House Intelligence Committee. However, the larger issue is that if there are members of the House Intelligence Committee think that America is not at war with Jihadists, the American public needs to know who and why.

Sources and Related Documents:

May 8, 2008 - Hoekstra Effort to Strip Earmarks from Intelligence Bill Successful - Bill Still Fails to Close Terrorist Loophole
May 8, 2008 - House Intelligence Committee Approves Funding for Intelligence Operations and Critical Oversight
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Members Web Page
Online Petition to the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - regarding Congressman Hoekstra's Amendment
December 8, 2006 - Congressional Quarterly - Democrats' New Intelligence Chairman Needs a Crash Course on al Qaeda -- by Jeff Stein
"War of Ideas" Sources on the Debate over the Identity of the Jihadist Enemy
May 8, 2008 - It's Islamic Jihad, Not Extremism, Uncle Sam -- by Diana West
May 6, 2008 - UPI: U.S. officials urged to avoid linking Islam, jihad with terrorism
May 2, 2008 - Investigative Project Releases Gov't Memos Curtailing Speech in War on Terror - by Steven Emerson
April 30, 2008 - The Continuing Debate Over "Jihadists" As The Enemy -- by Jeffrey Imm
April 24, 2008 - Who is America Fighting - Jihadists or Extremists? -- by Jeffrey Imm
April 24, 2008 - AP: Terms to use and avoid when talking about terrorism
April 24, 2008 - AP: 'Jihadist' booted from government lexicon
April 22, 2008 - JihadWatch.org: New State Department lexicon forbids use of the words "jihad" or "jihadist"
March 14, 2008 - National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) - Counter Terror Communications Center (CTCC) Memorandum, Volume 2, Issue 10 - "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide to Counterterrorism Communication"
January 2008 - Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims
July 18, 2007 - Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad - by Dr. Walid Phares
Dr. Walid Phares - The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad
September 18, 2001 -Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Members Contact Information:

List of Committee Members and Contact Information

1. Silvestre Reyes, Chairman - Democrat, Texas
1.1. Congressman Reyes Email Web Page
1.2. Congressman Reyes Address and Telephone:
2433 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4831
Fax: (202) 225-2016

2. Leonard L. Boswell - Democrat, Iowa
2.1. Congressman Boswell Email Web Page
2.2. Congressman Boswell Address and Telephone:
1427 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3806
Fax: (202) 225-5608

3. Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr - Democrat, Alabama
3.1. Congressman Cramer Email Web Page
3.2. Congressman Cramer Address and Telephone:
2184 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4801
Fax: (202) 225-4392

4. Anna G. Eshoo - Democrat, California
4.1. Congresswoman Eshoo Email Web Page
4.2. Congresswoman Eshoo Address and Telephone:
205 Cannon Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone: (202) 225-8104
Fax: (202) 225-8890

5. Rush D. Holt - Democrat, New Jersey
5.1. Congressman Holt Email Web Page
5.2. Congressman Holt Address and Telephone:
1019 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-5801
202-225-6025 (fax)

6. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger - Democrat, Maryland
6.1. Congressman Ruppersberger Email Web Page
6.2. Congressman Ruppersberger Address and Telephone:
1730 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2002
Phone: 202-225-3061
Fax: 202-225-3094

7. John Tierney, Democrat - Massachusetts
7.1. Congressman Tierney Email Web Page
7.2. Congressman Tierney Address and Telephone:
2238 Rayburn House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-8020
Fax: (202) 225-5915

8. Mike Thompson - Democrat, California
8.1. Congressman Thompson Email Web Page
8.2. Congressman Thompson Address and Telephone:
231 Cannon Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3311
Fax: (202) 225-4335

9. Jan Schakowsky - Democrat, Illinois
9.1. Congresswoman Schakowsky Email Web Page
9.2. Congresswoman Schakowsky Address and Telephone:
1027 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2111
Fax: (202) 226-6890

10. Jim Langevin - Democrat, Rhode Island
10.1. Congressman Langevin Email Web Page
10.2. Congressman Langevin Address and Telephone:
109 Cannon House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2735
fax: (202) 225-5976

11. Patrick Murphy - Democrat, Pennsylvania
11.1. Congressman Murphy Email Web Page - 19007
11.2. Congressman Murphy Address and Telephone:
1007 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4276
Fax: (202) 225-9511

12. Adam Schiff - Democrat, California
12.1. Congressman Schiff Email Web Page
12.2. Congressman Schiff Address and Telephone:
326 Cannon HOB
Washington D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4176
Facsimile: (202) 225-5828

13. Peter Hoekstra, Ranking Member - Republican, Michigan
13.1. Congressman Hoekstra Email Web Page
13.2. Congressman Hoekstra Address and Telephone:
2234 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-4401
Fax: (202) 226-0779

14. Terry Everett - Republican, Alabama
14.1. Congressman Everett Email Web Page
14.2. Congressman Everett Address and Telephone:
2312 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone (202) 225-2901
Fax (202) 225-8913

15. Elton Gallegly - Republican, California
15.1. Congressman Gallegly Email Web Page - 91361-3018
15.2. Congressman Gallegly Address and Telephone:
2309 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0523
Phone: (202) 225-5811
FAX: (202) 225-1100

16. Heather Wilson - Republican, New Mexico
16.1. Congresswoman Wilson Email Web Page
16.2. Congresswoman Wilson Address and Telephone:
442 Cannon House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-6316 Phone
202-225-4975 Fax
ask.heather@mail.house.gov

17. Mac Thornberry - Republican, Texas
17.1. Congressman Thornberry Email Web Page - 79101
17.2. Congressman Thornberry Address and Telephone:
2457 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3706
Fax: (202) 225-3486

18. John McHugh - Republican, New York
18.1. Congressman McHugh Email Web Page - 13601-3370
18.2. Congressman McHugh Address and Telephone:
2366 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3223
PHONE (202) 225-4611
FAX (202) 226-0621

19. Todd Tiahrt - Republican, Kansas
19.1. Congressman Tiahrt Email Web Page
19.2. Congressman Tiahrt Address and Telephone:
2441 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202.225.6216
Fax: 202.225.3489

20. Mike Rogers - Republican, Michigan
20.1. Congressman Rogers Email Web Page
20.2. Congressman Rogers Address and Telephone:
http://mikerogers.house.gov/Contact.aspx
133 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4872
Fax: (202) 225-5820

21. Darrell Issa - Republican, California
21.1. Congressman Issa Email Web Page
21.2. Congressman Issa Address and Telephone:
211 Cannon House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
phone: 202-225-3906
fax: 202-225-3303

http://counterterrorismblog.org/

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"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."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"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."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk