Doc's Talk: The choice we face‏

Sunday, February 21, 2010

The choice we face‏

Open letters to J Street in response to J Street's comments

To:

Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director

J Street

E-mail: info@jstreet.org

Jeremy,

What I constantly wonder is why an American organization its members do not live in Israel is trying so hard to shake the earth underneath the people they claim to support but do not live among? Israeli organizations do not try to change US policy or its politics the way you, an American organization, is working so destructively to do to Israel.

The five members of Congress delegation you brought to Israel are all known to be anti-Israel on their voting. Why do you even associate with these congressmen? Is that because they represent your anti-Israel views?

I wonder who fills the coffers of J Street’s Education Fund that funded these congressmen's trip? Is it Arab and anti-Israel-anti-Semites' money?

In refusing to meet with you and your delegation what Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon did is make a courageous, long outstanding, public statement: Israel will no longer stand idle, acknowledge or deal with organizations that bash Israel and are out to harm the state in any wy they can under the pretext of being pro-Israel.And indeed J Street is not the pro-Israel it claims to be and it does not deserve the Israeli government’s respect.

Israelis elected THIS government to lead the country. You did not vote for it and have no say in this matter. You also have no right to criticize or bash it, undermine it and work against its policies. This you need to leave to the people who elected it, if so they chose, or elect another government. If you want to make a change and difference in Israel simply go live there and make your vote heard.

All J Street does it cause anger among true Israel's supporters as well as it is aiding and abetting its enemies; it is aiding and abetting all those who cannot sleep well at night until they bring Israel to its knees and see Israel crumble in the hands of the Arabs and anti-Semites.

We, Israel's supporters, will not let you achieve your sinister goal and will fight you with the truth you lack to bring to light.

Israel can take care of itself and it did not ask you for your help. What your organization does it not helping Israel rather its foes!

Your organization J Street is nothing but anti-Semitic and anti-Israel-anti-Zionism entity and it is dangerous not only to Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, but also to all Jews anywhere in the world; to the entire Jewish Nation!

History attests that way before there was Christianity and the New Testament and Islam and Qur’an there was the Ten Commandments, Judaism and Israel!

History attests that way before there was Muhammad, Allah, Islam and Moslems, Arafat, PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Arabstinians-‘Palestinians’ and Arabstine-Palestine, Islamic Jihad terror, homicide-suicide bomber, the Moslems’ on going call to “kill the Jews”, there was Israeli dynasty of kings with an army, economy, a capital city Jerusalem, court and laws, temple and national holidays, and all else that makes a country function and grow, with the towns Hebron and Efrat, Bethlehem, Beth El, Jerusalem, Shiloh and Shechem nestled in the Judea and Samaria mountains.

I am asking you Jeremy to get out of Israel’s hair and its business or become pro-Israel in the real sense of the word.

Nurit Greenger, California

--------------------

Jeremy Ben-Ami

Executive Director

J Street

Jeremy,

Way before there was Christianity there was Israel! Way before the words, Allah, Muhammad, Islam, Muslims, PLO, Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad there was Israel!

Way before the words terror, terrorists and homicide-suicide bomber there was Israel.

Way before the Moslems became known Israel already existed and it had a dynasty of kings, an army, economy, a capital city Jerusalem, court and laws, temple and national holidays, and all else that makes a country function.

Way before the words Palestine or Palestinians or Arafat, we Jews, had Hebron and Efrat, Bear Sheba, Bethlehem and Beth El, Jerusalem, Shiloh and Shechem and all of Yehuda-Judea and Shomron-Samaria was Israel.

The name Jerusalem is mentioned in the Jewish bible seven hundred and thirty eight (738) times. In the Koran, the Moslem holy book, Jerusalem is mentioned zero times.

The word Yahadut-Judaism came from the word Yehuda-Judea. Judaism started in Hebron about 4400 years ago, 3000 years before Mohammed was born in 570 AD in Arabia.

Jeremy, I do not think you truly care about Israel and/or Judaism and the truth, nor about your J Street.

You sit down to talk with the very same people who not only do not recognize Israel’s right to exist but want to see it vanish. You sit down to talk with the people who devote their lives, their children and families lives and a great deal of resources to destroy our only ancient and historical homeland. Why?

This tiny state Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is the only place in the Middle East were Arabs have human rights, women rights, Gay rights, freedom of speech and live under democratic rule of law. You claim to be ‘pro-Israel’ yet you and your Leftist-Liberal organization have no shame to put this tiny Jewish state through a daily meat grinder around the world. This is nothing but hypocrisy at its best! You are clearly NOT pro Israel or pro peace! In face you instigate divisiveness among Jews as well as angers and embarrass many of us.

Your organization J Street is nothing but anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and is dangerous not only to this tiny democracy Israel but to all the Jews in the world.

Moti Gur

VP Standwithus

--------------

PS Please read the respond from Z Street

Several news stories recently covered what was cast as a diplomatic faux pas by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. The implication was that Ayalon should apologize for not meeting with visiting members of congress for what, it was suggested, was an act of hostility towards their host, J Street, an organization whose pro-Israel bona fides he has questioned.

While traveling in Israel, Congressman William Delahunt (D-Mass.), on behalf of himself and four other congressional members, harshly criticized the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, who declined to meet with them if they were accompanied by the trip organizers. Delahunt was angered by the Israeli official’s apparent suggestion that the delegation “would even consider traveling to the region with groups” that “[Ayalon] inaccurately described as anti-Israel.”

But it appears that the ones who should apologize are those hosts - the pro-Palestinian group J Street and the overtly anti-Israel Churches for Middle East Peace. They need to apologize to the Israeli government, to all Israelis and to the members of their congressional mission. They need to do that for inviting members of the US congress to sit down and chat with an Arab official who only days before publicly praised an Arab Palestinian terrorist for trying to murder an Israeli, and who congratulated the parents of the attempted murderer on their son becoming a martyr.

They should also be embarrassed by their hysterical response - no doubt instigated and manipulated by J Street - to the fact that they “had” to meet with Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor instead of Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. The Prime Minister outranks the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister outranks the Deputy Foreign Minister. Does it really make sense to complain about meeting with a higher ranking official?

Many people realize that J Street is not, as it claims to be, pro-Israel. But the other group which co-sponsored the trip and with which J Street has a well-established and at times inter-connecting relationship, Churches for Middle East Peace, does not describe itself as pro-Israel -- and with good reason.

Yet CMEP does tout itself, as J Street does also, as “pro-peace.” So guess what CMEP considers evidence of being “pro-peace”? In the 2009 CMEP conference document, all 10 points of their “2009 PRO-PEACE HILL HIGHLIGHTS” have to do with support and aid to the Arab Palestinians. The only mention of a “pro-peace” US government action having to do with Israelis is the “well-coordinated attack” by congressional leaders on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his policies.

Stop the settlements, stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem, eliminate all checkpoints, open the borders to Gaza, stop destroying the Gazan tunnels systems, say J Street and CMEP, and then the Israelis and all the Middle East terrorists will skip down the yellow brick road to peace.

But there is still another reason J Street should apologize to Israelis, to true lovers of Israel, and to their guest congressional delegation members. The trip itinerary, apparently arranged by J Street, included a visit on Tueday, February 16, with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Two days earlier it was revealed that Fayyad visited the parents of Faiz Faraj. Faraj was killed after charging a group of Israelis in Hebron and stabbing one of them.

During his “condolence” visit Fayyad “denounced in extremely harsh terms the actions of the ‘occupation forces,’” which he claimed were part of the “ongoing campaign to suppress the non-violent protests of residents,” according to the official Palestinian newspaper (translation by Palestinian Media Watch).

It is time to recognize that J Street travels in a parallel universe in which they see nothing wrong in having a diplomacy meeting with an Arab official who just described stabbing an Israeli to be an act of non-violence, and to honoring that “non-violent” stabbers’ parents for their wonderful son. In that universe, apparently, it makes sense for J Street to call itself pro-Israel. And in that universe, J Street’s buddy organization which shares the same alternate universe vocabulary - Churches for Middle East Peace - calls itself that with a straight face.

From: Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street [mailto:info@jstreet.org]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:07 AM
To: motigur@ca.rr.com
Subject: The choice we face

moti --

I've just landed in the US following an exhilarating week leading a delegation of five members of Congress to Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. [1]

The trip, sponsored by the J Street Education Fund, exposed key friends of Israel in Congress to complexity on the ground, to divergent opinions and to first-hand controversy.

The Delegation visited Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman, meeting with politicians in and out of government. We dined and debated with civil society leaders in Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. We heard the first-hand powerful narratives of Israeli settlers, families in Sderot, human rights activists, Gilad Shalit's father, and descendants of Palestinian refugees.

With one notable exception - as you may know, we were placed under a so-called "boycott" by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. On the heels of telling the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that J Street should stop calling itself something it's not (i.e., "pro-Israel"), Ayalon leaked to Israeli media word of a boycott of the group, supposedly preventing us from meeting with Israeli officials. [2]

Needless to say, the members of Congress were none-too-pleased, holding a press conference to express their shock and issuing a statement demanding clarification from the Government. [3]

For many - from Israeli political insiders and media to American Jewish leaders and politicians - this incident was just the latest in a series of indications that the Foreign Ministry in this Government is less an open front door to Israel than a checkpoint for ideological purity.

This week's spat between the Ministry and our Delegation deepens concerns about the increasing inability of some in Israel and in the US to distinguish between criticism of or disagreement with Israeli policy and outright hostility to the state itself. [4]

The more supporters of Israel put themselves in a defensive crouch, lashing out at the slightest hint of criticism, the less meaningful their entreaties will be when the threats are real and the enemies truly lethal.

Thankfully, within twenty-four hours, the Government in this case backtracked, apologizing to the Delegation. (See Jerusalem Post and Haaretz coverage of yesterday's apologies). [5, 6]

There is much beyond this controversy to share from the visit. We were struck by the disparity between the fierce urgency felt by many whose lives focus on solving the conflict and the lack of urgency felt by many others whose lives are more removed from day-to-day contact with the conflict.

We heard dramatically varying views on the state of American diplomacy - with some unsatisfied with the tactics, pace and results of the Mitchell effort to date, and others expressing great confidence in Senator Mitchell and highly appreciative of his patience, experience and skills.

We heard from those who believe that only if the threat from Iran is dealt with, can Israel with confidence turn to dealing with the Palestinian conflict - and from those for whom action on resolving Israel's conflict with the Palestinians is a step toward dealing with the Iranian threat.

The diversity of opinions is remarkable; the depth of passion unmistakable.

But I take away from the whole experience a troubling sense that beyond any particular issue of the moment - beyond Iran, Goldstone, Jerusalem, settlements, or Danny Ayalon - there is a fundamental conflict rising up to face the Jewish people as a whole.

There is in our community - and by that I include the whole of world Jewry as one people from Israel to the US and around the globe - a struggle developing between two camps with radically different visions of Jewish expression in the 21st century.

On one side of this struggle are those committed to our vision of time-honored Jewish and democratic values - grounded in respect for "the other," a tolerance for dissent, and a willingness to sacrifice territory for peace.

On the other side are those who seem willing to muffle dissent, view all conflict as zero-sum, and place retaining captured land and territory at the center of its value system.

For a while now, it has been popular to say that for Israel there is a choice ahead between the land, being Jewish, and being democratic. Many leading Israelis have come to see that it's possible only to have two of the three.

I think the choice for world Jewry is similarly profound and stark. As a people - do we line up with those who seek to hang on to all of "Greater Israel" and watch our Jewish and democratic values erode in Israel and in our community, or do we stand up urgently for territorial compromise and for behavior in Israel and in our community that reflects our cherished and long-held values?

More than ever, it's clear to me that we're not fighting simply over Israeli or American foreign policy. We're in a larger and more significant battle over who we are as a people in this new century and how our people are defined collectively for ourselves and for others by the behavior of the country that serves as our national expression.

We'll be in touch,

- Jeremy

Jeremy Ben-Ami
Executive Director
J Street
February 19, 2010

[1] The five members of Congress who traveled with the Congressional Delegation are Reps. Lois Capps (CA-23), William Delahunt (MA-10), Bob Filner (CA-51), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15), and Donald Payne (NJ-10).

[2] "Deputy FM Ayalon addresses Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations." Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 17, 2010.

[3] "Rep. Delahunt Statement on J Street Education Fund Congressional Delegation," February 17, 2010.

[4] "The Ministry for Isolating Israel," by Haaretz Editorial Board. Haaretz, February 19, 2010.

[5] "Diaspora Affairs: J Street 1: Ayalon 0," by Haviv Rettig Gur. The Jerusalem Post, February 19, 2010.

[6] "J Street: Criticism of Israel does not make us the enemy," by Barak Ravid. Haaretz, February 19, 2010.

Press Release: J Street Education Fund Congressional Mission Leaves for the Middle East, February 12, 2010.

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