Espanol / English

Middle East Near You

49 facts about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

A Palestinian boy plays his guitar among the rubble of his home in Gaza
A Palestinian boy plays his guitar among the rubble of his home in Gaza. [File photo]

This week marked the 49th anniversary of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. So here are 49 facts about a military regime that has lasted almost half a century.

  1. The West Bank – including East Jerusalem – and the Gaza Strip together constitute the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), which have been under Israeli military occupation since June 1967.
  2. Prior to Israeli occupation, the West Bank was controlled by Jordan, and the Gaza Strip by Egypt.
  3. Before the State of Israel was established in 1948, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were simply parts of Mandate Palestine; their ‘borders’ are the result of Israeli expansion and armistice lines.
  4. 300,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip became refugees during Israel’s conquest in June 1967; the vast majority were unable to return.
  5. In 1967, Israeli forces ethnically cleansed and destroyed a number of Palestinian villages in the OPT, including Imwas, Beit Nuba, and others.
  6. By an odd coincidence of history, Israel’s military occupation of the OPT began not long after the military regime over Palestinian citizens of Israel had formally ended in December 1966.
  7. Therefore, the State of Israel has subjected Palestinians citizens and Palestinian non-citizens to military rule for all but six months of its 68-year existence.
  8. One of the first acts of Israeli authorities in East Jerusalem was to demolish the Mughrabi Quarter, expelling 600 residents and destroying 135 homes.
  9. In place of the 800-year old Mughrabi Quarter, Israel created the Western Wall Plaza.
  10. The first West Bank settlement was established in September 1967, supported by the then Labor-led government.
  11. All Israeli settlements in the OPT are illegal under international law, constituting a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
  12. In a secret memo in 1967, a legal adviser to the Israeli government affirmed the illegality of civilian settlements in the OPT.
  13. By 1972, there were some 10,000 Israelis living in illegal settlements in the OPT.
  14. In 1974/75, Israel established Ma’ale Adumim, located in the West Bank to the east of Jerusalem. It is now the largest Israeli settlement in terms of area.
  15. There are now 125 government-sanctioned settlements in the OPT, plus another 100 or so unauthorised settler ‘outposts’.
  16. There are around 400,000 Israelis living in illegal settlements the Occupied West Bank.
  17. This excludes residents of colonies established in East Jerusalem – a further 200,000.
  18. Israelis have voted in 14 national elections since June 1967. Unlike settlers, Palestinians in the OPT have been unable to vote in any of those 14 elections.
  19. According to the UN, there have been 2,598 acts of violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the last ten years.
  20. One of the methods adopted by Israeli authorities over the decades to colonise West Bank land has been Ottoman-era land legislation dating back to 1858.
  21. By the mid-1980s, Palestinian cultivated land in the West Bank had dropped by 40 percent.
  22. In 1991, Israel began requiring a Palestinian seeking to enter Israel from the OPT to obtain an individual permit.israeli-checkpoint-military-checkpoint-Einav-checkpoint-east-ofTulkarem-5
  23. More than 500 physical obstacles, including checkpoints and earth mounds, restrict Palestinian freedom of movement in the West Bank.
  24. In 2003, Israel began work on the Separation Wall in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Around 85 percent of the total length of the Wall’s projected route lies inside the OPT.
  25. In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory opinion that the construction of the Wall in the OPT is “contrary to international law”.
  26. Some 82,000 settlers live outside the Separation Wall; add Ariel, a major settlement-city in the middle of the northern West Bank, and the total is around 100,000 settlers.
  27. The Gaza Strip is home to around 1.8 million Palestinians, some 70 percent of whom are United Nations (UN)-registered refugees, expelled from their homes by Israel in 1948.
  28. For decades, Israel maintained a permanent armed presence in Gaza, expropriated land, and built colonies for a settler population that rose to more than 8,000.
  29. In 2005, Israel removed these settlers, and redeployed its forces to Gaza’s perimeter fence.
  30. The Gaza Strip is still under Israeli occupation: along with the West Bank and East Jerusalem, it forms part of a single territorial entity (OPT).
  31. This was affirmed in UN Security Council Resolution 1860 in 2009, and also affirmed in November 2014 by the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.israeli-soldiers-in-riot-gear-al-aqsa-in-the-background-3-horses
  32. In 1967, Israel expanded Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries to include newly-occupied territory; this act of annexation has never been recognised by the international community.
  33. A third of the annexed territory was expropriated; by 2001, some 47,000 settlement housing units had been built on this expropriated land.
  34. The vast majority of Palestinians in Jerusalem are permanent residents, not citizens. In 2014, the residency status of 107 Palestinian residents of Jerusalem was revoked.
  35. Palestinians suffer from a discriminatory water policy maintained by Israeli authorities.
  36. Israel enforces a dual legal system in the OPT: civil courts for the 600,000 settlers, and military courts for 4.5 million Palestinians. The latter has a 99.74 percent conviction rate.
  37. The Israeli military detains Palestinians from the OPT without charge or trial, for renewable six-month periods. There are currently 715 such prisoners, from a total of 7,000 jailed Palestinians.

    Saker Jaabis sits in rubble of his home in Jabel Mukaber in Jerusalem, demolished by Israeli authorities

    Saker Jaabis sits in rubble of his home in Jabel Mukaber in Jerusalem, demolished by Israeli authorities

  38. Since 1967, Israeli authorities have demolished hundreds of Palestinian homes as an act of collective punishment.
  39. Many Palestinian structures are demolished by Israeli forces for lacking the right permit; yet more than 95 percent of Palestinian permit applications are rejected.
  40. In 2016 to date (June 6), Israeli military authorities have demolished 625 Palestinian structures.
  41. During the First Intifada (1987–93), Israeli forces killed over 1,000 Palestinians, one in five of them children.
  42. In the first few days of the Second Intifada, the Israeli army fired 1.3 million bullets.
  43. In six military offensives from 2006-2014, Israel killed 1,097 Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip.
  44. Israeli occupation forces killed 137 Palestinians in the West Bank in 2015, and 56 in 2014. Over the same two-year period, Israeli forces also injured 19,950 Palestinians in the West Bank.
  45. The Oslo Accords, signed in the mid-1990s, saw the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs some aspects of life for Palestinians, in some of the OPT.
  46. The Accords divided up the OPT into Areas A, B, and C. The territory of Areas A and B is not contiguous, and consists of 227 separate areas under varying degrees of PA control.
  47. Some 60 percent of the West Bank remains under full Israeli military and civil control. However, even in the rest of the West Bank, the Israeli military conducts raids at will.
  48. According to Human Rights Watch: “Palestinians face systematic discrimination merely because of their race, ethnicity, and national origin.” Amnesty International agrees.
  49. In 2012, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said Israeli policies in the OPT violate the prohibition of “racial segregation and apartheid.”
Categories
BlogBlogs - PoliticsIsraelMiddle EastNewsPalestine
  • Vinegar Hill

    An excellent, truthful list demonstrating the brutalities of the country of Israel. In summary, the Israeli occupation is illegal according to international law and according to UNSCR 242 it has to withdraw from all territory illegally occupied in the war of 1967. Israel has to get out of all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Israeli politicians, both past and present, who are responsible for these violations need to be denounced and sent to the Hague. Let justice be done.

    • peepsqueek

      In UN Resolution “242”, it does not say Israel must withdraw from “all” the territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was deliberate, so that the Arab States could not use these territories to attack Israel again. The “Arab States” pushed for the word “all” to be included, but this was rejected by the UN Security Council. Read the UN notes and additions.

      Israel was a constant target before there was a single Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza. Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria—the West Bank (birthplace of David, Solomon, and Jesus)—since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan’s rule from 1948 to 1967.

      • betz55

        When will Bibi stand before his people and say six courageous words: “I will accept a Palestinian state?”

        Palestine does not belong to the Jews and their right to the land is neither antecedent nor superior to that of the Arabs. Jews may have lived in Palestine 2000 years ago but the Arabs have established over one-and-half thousand years of continuous Arab-Muslim presence, and were only dispossess¬ed of it by superior force and colonial machination which continues to this day.

        The Palestinians (as represented by the PLO) formally recognized both the reality of the state of Israel and “its right to live in peace and security” as per the September 9, 1993 letter from Chairman Arafat to Prime Minister Rabin and the subsequent double amendment of the PLO’s Charter in 1996 and 1999.

        What they cannot be expected to do is to renege on their past, deny their identity, and give up on what they believe is their history. They cannot be expected to become Zionists.

        Israel, and you, will need to accept a Palestinian state and start respecting the right of the people who occupied the land before you or you will not have peace. The burden is on you.U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (which Israel had helped draft) which provided for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict” in exchange for peace and security. Those resolutions represented official U.S. and international policy then, and they still do

        • peepsqueek

          Berbers, Copts, Kurds, Azides, Assyrians, Jews, Armenians, etc have always lived in the Middle East. The Jews are the only non-Arab non-Muslim people that have the full right of self determination in their very tiny cultural and historic homeland, and for some reason, that pisssses you off. Do you really believe that every inch of the land belongs to Arabs?

          “I will accept a Palestinian state?” From 1948–67, the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab rule, and no Jewish settlements existed there, but the Arabs never set up a Palestinian State. Instead, Gaza was occupied by Egypt, and the West Bank was occupied by Jordan. No demands for a West Bank/Gaza independent state were heard until Israel, after much Arab terrorism, took control of these territories in the Six-Day War. You know this is true, therefore, your position is bogus.

          Should Arabs be entitled to keep Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq? These people were not Arabs nor did they speak Arabic.

          • betz55

            Sorry, I had to stop laughing before replying to your nonsensical post. Oh I get it now; Palestinians only have those rights which do not conflict with the “right” that Israeli Jews had to steal most of their land.

            Berbers, Copts, Kurds, Azides, Assyrians, Jews, Armenians, and Arabs have always lived in the Middle East.

            The Jews are the only – no, not the only – non-Arab non-Muslim people that have the full right of self determination in their very tiny cultural and historic homeland, – wrong – the Palestinians also have the right to self determination in their very cultural and historic homeland and for some reason that pisses you off. No one is fooled anymore, no one hates like a rabid, messianic Jew.

            Do you really believe that every inch of the land belongs to Jews? The exquisite irony is that you and Israel are so blinkered you won’t even recognize the single-state when it hits you in the face.

            It’s 2016, not 1948-67. Get over it.
            Even more fundamentally, demographic trends mean that Israel can’t have it all.
            It can’t be a Jewish state, a democratic state, and a state in control of its whole historical land.
            It can only have two of its objectives at a time.
            Israel can be Jewish and territorial — but not democratic.
            Or it can be democratic and territorial — but not Jewish.
            Or finally, it can be Jewish and democratic — but not territorial.

            Israelis cannot “democratically” decide to keep Palestinians as their prisoners; to prevent them from traveling freely; to try them in military courts; to hold them under a military regime which views them as an enemy rather than a civilian authority which seeks to serve them. They are not objects, but human beings, and they have rights. If you deny them those rights then you are living in apartheid and the world will continue to shun you as you continue to de-legitimize yourselves.

          • peepsqueek

            You might attempt to think things through before you laugh and post at the same time. The banner of Islam already flies over 99.9% of the Middle East land mass, plus 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs live in Israel proper as citizens on land that hypocritical activists say is ethnically cleansed. Laugh at that hypocrite! Hamas: No Muslim shall rest until the banner of Islam flies over every inch of the land.

            Had collective Arab Countries accepted the one tiny Jewish State, instead of choosing war, Palestinian Arabs would be celebrating 68 years of independent Palestinian Statehood today, with pre 1967 lines. It is 2016 and Palestinian Arabs are still throwing rocks and firing rockets at Israeli civilian populations, and expect a different result.

            There are 57 declared Muslim states in the United Nations, and one tiny Jewish state, and the one tiny Jewish State pissses you off.

            If you believe Israel to be a [true apartheid state], please tell us all: Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Israeli Arabs? Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Israeli Arabs? Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Israeli Arabs? Which Israeli buses refuse to board Israeli Arabs? In what elections are Israeli Arabs not allowed to vote? In what area of public life are Arab women not allowed to serve?

          • betz55

            Israeli Arabs ? Nice try at hasbara semantics. We are talking about Palestinians. Laugh at that hypocrite! Israel: No Jew shall rest until the banner of Israel flies over every inch of the land. Per the Likud Party Platform: The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river

            Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government.
            The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy.
            The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism.
            And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid.

            You are also ignoring the fact that Israel helped Hamas rise in the 1980s to defeat the PLO and then when the PLO ceased being effective advocates for its people, it embraced it and sidelined Hamas.

            Zionism is the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from their land. You can’t accuse Hamas while ignoring all the right wingers in Israel who call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. You’re a hypocrite and not very good one at that.

            Hamas is not going to go away and they are not occupying anyone’s land and practicing apartheid. Israel is.
            The Wall Street Journal
            How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

            Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Palestinians? None
            Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Palestinians? All
            Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Palestinians? All
            Which Israeli buses refuse to board Palestinians? All
            In what elections are Palestinians not allowed to vote? All
            In what area of public life are Palestinians not allowed to serve? All

            And get some education, demographically, the worlds Muslims are in Indonesia you idiot.
            You gotta work with what you have. Logically and morally, if one is an Israel supporter, like you, that‘s not much.

          • betz55

            More nonsense. Pure hasbara semantics – Israel Arabs – no, no quite, it’s the Palestinians. Proof Israel is a true apartheid state:
            Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli buses refuse to board Palestinians?:All
            In what elections are Palestinians not allowed to vote? All
            In what area of public life are Arab women not allowed to serve?All, why would they?

            Laugh at that hypocrite! Israel: No Israeli shall rest until the banner of Israel flies over every inch of the land.
            Likud party platform:The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river

            Yes, it is 2016 and had Israel accepted the State of Palestine, instead of choosing war, Israelis would be celebrating 68 years of peace with pre 1967 lines. It is 2016 and Israeli illegal settler squats are still beating, killing, burning, running over, stealing land resources and celebrating the death of Palestinians and expect a different result.

            As for Hamas?
            You are ignoring the fact that Israel helped Hamas rise in the 1980s to defeat the PLO and then when the PLO ceased being effective advocates for its people, it embraced it and sidelined Hamas.

            The Wall Street Journal
            How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

            You can’t accuse Hamas while ignoring all the right wingers in Israel who call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinains. Your a hypocrite and not very good one at that.

            As for Muslims, get some education, demographically the largest portion of Muslims is in Indonesia, you idiot.

          • betz55

            More nonsense. Pure hasbara semantics – Israel Arabs – no, no quite, it’s the Palestinians.
            Proof Israel is a true apartheid state:
            Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli buses refuse to board Palestinians?:All
            In what elections are Palestinians not allowed to vote? All
            In what area of public life are Arab women not allowed to serve?All, why would they?

            Laugh at that hypocrite! Israel: No Israeli shall rest until the banner of Israel flies over every inch of the land. Likud party platform:The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

            Yes, it is 2016 and had Israel accepted the State of Palestine, instead of choosing war, Israelis would be celebrating 68 years of peace with pre 1967 lines. It is 2016 and Israeli illegal settler squats are still beating, killing, burning, running over, stealing land resources and celebrating the death of Palestinians and expect a different result.

            As for Hamas? You are ignoring the fact that Israel helped Hamas rise in the 1980s to defeat the PLO and then when the PLO ceased being effective advocates for its people, it embraced it and sidelined Hamas.

            The Wall Street Journal How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html You can’t accuse Hamas while ignoring all the right wingers in Israel who call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinains.

            Your a hypocrite and not very good one at that. As for Muslims, get some education, demographically the largest portion of Muslims is in Indonesia.

          • betz55

            Oh pipsqeak – more hasbara semantics – Israel Arabs – no, no quite, it’s the Palestinians.
            Proof Israel is a true apartheid state:
            Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli buses refuse to board Palestinians?:All
            In what elections are Palestinians not allowed to vote? All
            In what area of public life are Arab women not allowed to serve?All, why would they?

            Laugh at that hypocrite! Israel: No Israeli shall rest until the banner of Israel flies over every inch of the land. Likud party platform:The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river

            Yes, it is 2016 and had Israel accepted the State of Palestine, instead of choosing war, Israelis would be celebrating 68 years of peace with pre 1967 lines. It is 2016 and Israeli illegal settler squats are still beating, killing, burning, running over, stealing land resources and celebrating the death of Palestinians and expect a different result.

            As for Hamas? You are ignoring the fact that Israel helped Hamas rise in the 1980s to defeat the PLO and then when the PLO ceased being effective advocates for its people, it embraced it and sidelined Hamas. The Wall Street Journal How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

            You can’t accuse Hamas while ignoring all the right wingers in Israel who call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinains. Your a hypocrite and not very good one at that. As for Muslims, get some education, demographically the largest portion of Muslims is in Indonesia.

          • betz55

            You can try and spin the semantics all you want – Israel Arabs – no, no quite, it’s the Palestinians.
            Proof Israel is a true apartheid state:
            Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli buses refuse to board Palestinians?:All
            In what elections are Palestinians not allowed to vote? All
            In what area of public life are Arab women not allowed to serve?All, why would they?

            Laugh at that hypocrite! Israel: No Israeli shall rest until the banner of Israel flies over every inch of the land.

            Likud party platform:The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

            Yes, it is 2016 and had Israel accepted the State of Palestine, instead of choosing war, Israelis would be celebrating 68 years of peace with pre 1967 lines.

            It is 2016 and Israeli illegal settler squats are still beating, killing, burning, running over, stealing land resources and celebrating the death of Palestinians and expect a different result.

            As for Hamas? You are ignoring the fact that Israel helped Hamas rise in the 1980s to defeat the PLO and then when the PLO ceased being effective advocates for its people, it embraced it and sidelined Hamas.

            The Wall Street Journal How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

            You can’t accuse Hamas while ignoring all the right wingers in Israel who call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinains. Your a hypocrite and not very good one at that. As for Muslims, get some education, demographically the largest portion of Muslims is in Indonesia..

          • betz55

            You can try and spin the semantics all you want – Israel Arabs – no, no quite, it’s the Palestinians.
            Proof Israel is a true apartheid state:
            Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
            Which Israeli buses refuse to board Palestinians?:All
            In what elections are Palestinians not allowed to vote? All
            In what area of public life are Arab women not allowed to serve?All, why would they?

            Laugh at that hypocrite! Israel: No Israeli shall rest until the banner of Israel flies over every inch of the land.

            Likud party platform:The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

            Yes, it is 2016 and had Israel accepted the State of Palestine, instead of choosing war, Israelis would be celebrating 68 years of peace with pre 1967 lines.

            It is 2016 and Israeli illegal settler squats are still beating, killing, burning, running over, stealing land resources and celebrating the death of Palestinians and expect a different result.

            As for Hamas? You are ignoring the fact that Israel helped Hamas rise in the 1980s to defeat the PLO and then when the PLO ceased being effective advocates for its people, it embraced it and sidelined Hamas.

            The Wall Street Journal How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas http://online.wsj.com/article/

            You can’t accuse Hamas while ignoring all the right wingers in Israel who call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinains. Your a hypocrite and not very good one at that. As for Muslims, get some education, demographically the largest portion of Muslims is in Indonesia..

          • robert affinity

            Wow. You have been grossly misinformed about Israel. You have quite a list of claims. Every single one is false. But, they do describe Arab attitudes about Jews and Israelis.

            Google is your friend.

            Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Palestinians?: NONE

            https://www.standwithus.com/news/article.asp?id=1671

            Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Palestinians?: NONE

            http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/23/450905869/israeli-cafe-offers-discounts-for-jews-and-arabs-to-share-a-meal

            Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Palestinians?: NONE

            http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.680454

            Which Israeli buses refuse to board Palestinians?:None

            Really? Every bus bombing is done by Palestinians on busses.

            In what elections are Palestinians not allowed to vote? NONE

            In what area of public life are Arab women not allowed to serve? NONE

            Oh look, we can do two at once
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haneen_Zoabi

        • Mike Abramov

          I am sorry but you are mis-interpreting the history of Palestine. Palestine has been OCCUPIED by Muslims, Arabs Turks, Mumluks, Venetians/Genoans, Christians and finally the British until 1948. I have no problem with a two-state solution but the PA and Hamas want 100% of pre-1948 Israel. Instead of blaming Israel for the intransigence, maybe you should look at the corrupt leadership of the Palestinians.

          All I ask of you is that pre-1967 borders, when returned to the Palestinians, should not be a gateway for terrorists. Can you promise that to Israel?

          • betz55

            And these cultures – Arabs Turks, Mumluks, Venetians/Genoans, Christians – were indigenous to this area for 2000 years before the Jews from Europe decided a comic book gave them a delusional deed to the land.

            I have no problem with a two-state solution but the Israelis want 100% of ‘Israel’ – the ludicrous Judea and Samaria.

            Instead of blaming Palestine for the intransigence, maybe you should look at the corrupt leadership of the Israelis – Olmert and now Nothingyahoo. Refer to Haaretz if need be.

            All I ask of you is that pre-1967 borders, when returned to the Palestinians, should not be a gateway for messiance, fanatical illegal settler terrorist squats. Can you promise that to Palestine?

          • Mike Abramov

            I think you have missed the point. Firstly you argue about the ‘right-of-return’. Jews have always lived in Palestine but the majority of Jews went through the diaspora after 490 AD. No, The Arabs were the Saracens of Lebanon, the Ottomans were Turks, the Mumluks were mostly Egyptian and the Venetians/Genoans were granted the right to invade Palestine by Urban II. The Naqba is a social phenomenon exclusive to Palestinians who are in denial that they lost the war and cannot accept that they lost. As for Ha’aretz, this paper is the equivalent of The Guardian and is a left-wing paper.

            No, I cannot promise that a tiny minority of Israelis will resent the return of the West Bank in the same way that Palestinians will promise not treat the West Bank as a staging post for terrorism. FYI, I attended a debate last week on the freedom of the Arab press. A paper like Ha’aretz would not be in business in nearly all Arab countries except Tunisia.

  • Yair Davidiy

    49 Counter-Facts: In Defense of Israel
    Answers to the Counterfeits (13 June 2016, 7 Sivan, 5776)
    http://hebrewnations.com/articles/ca/counter.html

    • betz55

      LOL ! A whole lot a nothin’. But thanks for playing.

  • Brian Becker

    Here is one final fact=> http://www.mapofpalestine.com/

  • Brian Becker
  • betz55

    Israel has painted themselves into a corner, surrounded by states that loathe them. Their hubris, arrogance and sense of entitlement based on the ridiculous credo of “God’s chosen people”, has left them an apartheid state, discredited, unmasked, de-legitimized, scorned, reduced to a diplomatic dwarf, maniacally messianic fanatics, laughed at and alienated from the rest of the international community.

    • peepsqueek

      “Surrounded by states that loathe them”???

      Egypt banned Hamas and branded it a terrorist organization.

      Jordan banned Hamas in 1999. In 2013, Jordan rejected requests to allow Hamas to return.

      Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah disagree and are fighting with each other in Syria (in an age old Sunni/Shiite conflict)

      Syrian Government- Hamas is an uninvited guest

      Can you name one Arab Country that supports Hamas or their methods? Please be specific!

      “Scorned and reduced to a diplomatic dwarf”? In the mean time, both Egypt and Jordan have honored their peace treaty and full diplomatic relations with Israel for decades, trade, tourism, and open borders which has been good for all three respectively. Israel also maintains diplomatic relations with 157 countries, and does business and trade with most of them.

      • betz55

        Israel, and you, will need to accept a Palestinian state and start respecting the right of the people who occupied the land before you or you will not have peace. The burden is on Israel.U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (which Israel had helped draft) which provided for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict” in exchange for peace and security. Those resolutions represented official U.S. and international policy then, and they still do.

        However, eventually a couple good things will come out of this. The Palestinians will eventually have to thank the Israelis for building them all those nice houses free of charge and of course the Jews can stay and live in Palestine if they want to but they will be subject to Palestinians laws – up to and including home dispossession.

        Better yet, ship all those illegal settler terrorist squats to the Negev who complain, burn land, tear down olive trees, burn mosques, run over, kill, and beat Palestinians and let them be ‘pioneers’ there. They deserve to wander in their own desert for the next 40 years.

        No need to blame yourself or the Israeli’s. They are destroying themselves, politically, demographically, religiously, and diplomatically.The facts are out there and due to the internet Israel can no longer hide behind media, political, or bulldoze people into accepting their ‘facts’ or ‘intelligence’.

        Good for you that you blindly support a failing country, by not admitting mistakes or accepting responsibility for failed policies you and Israel are perpetuating the system that guarantees your failure.

        The Israel you blindly defend will not last and will not look the same 10 years from now.

        Israel is the problem. And until you get it pipsqeak, Israel will go on destroying itself, if not demographically and morally. Is that clear enough for an obtuse person like you to understand? Good.

        • peepsqueek

          In UN Resolution “242”, it does not say Israel must withdraw from “all” the territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was deliberate, so that the Arab States could not use these [territories] to attack Israel again. The “Arab States” pushed for the word “all” to be included, but this was rejected by the UN Security Council. Read the UN notes and additions.

          What is your cultural heritage that gives you the moral high ground in all this? I have a feeling that you are a hypocrite. Please do not dodge the question

          • betz55

            Oh pipsqeak – what gives you the moral high ground in all this? The old testament is not a mortgage deed?Blame the victim then steal his land, God told me to do this in an 2000 year old comic book.

            Israel was born of the terrorism of the Irgun, Ledi, Stern Gang, Hagana… and it has chosen arrogance and terrorism to perpetuate its occupation of Arab territory and then it asks ‘why don’t they like us?

            Resolution 242 – Oh, it’s right here:
            Resolution 242 (1967) by the Security Council and therefore fully binding…
            1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
            (i) withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
            (ii) termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

            2. Affirms further the necessity
            (a) for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
            (b) for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
            © for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.

            Israel quibbles over interpretation of the wording but it’s clear to everyone else.

            Security Council Resolution 338 (1973) calls on the parties concerned to start immediate implementation of Security Council Resolution 242.
            Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) “determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East…

            Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”

            No. 242 — 22 Nov 1967 Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

          • peepsqueek

            Nice dodge to a simple question! “What is your cultural heritage that gives you the moral high ground in all this? I have a feeling that you are a hypocrite. Please do not dodge the question”

            I am an atheist, but he Qur’an recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled. Prophecy or Fantasy, all three religions have it in their collective books, and it has been a reality in your life time. What is your bases for wanting to turn Israel into another Islamic Republic? Please be honest!

          • betz55

            Oh pipsqeak, your cherry picking just doesn’t hold up.
            It recognizes it as the land for Jews, not Israels, and also the Canaans which are the Philistines, who are the Palestinians.

            The Palestinians were there before the Jews.

            Islamic Republic? Who said anything about that except you and your ilk who want to turn it into a Jewish only state. What is your basis, a centuries old comic book that a delusional messianic people think is a property deed?

            You need to read this again and share it with your hasbaric buddies there at the hasbara institute in your capital Tel Aviv:

            Even more fundamentally, demographic trends mean that Israel can’t have it all.
            It can’t be a Jewish state, a democratic state, and a state in control of its whole historical land.
            It can only have two of its objectives at a time.
            Israel can be Jewish and territorial — but not democratic.
            Or it can be democratic and territorial — but not Jewish.
            Or finally, it can be Jewish and democratic — but not territorial.

          • peepsqueek

            The Quran states that God granted the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel and ordered them to settle there. In addition, it is predicted that before the end of days, God will bring the Children of Israel to retake possession of the Land, gathering them from the different countries and nations.

            I don’t read Arabic, but if you find another translation, post it. Again, what is your cultural heritage?, it might explain a few things.

            Israel is as close to a democracy as your going to get in the Middle East.

          • betz55

            God does not grant land deeds – yea – God told me to do this in an 2000 year old comic book, it does not give Israel the right to ethnically cleanse the indigenous population. The Koran states that both Jews and Canaans will share the land, it does not say anything about the children of isarel taking possession of the land and settling there and definelty not from different countries and nations. You can spin your narrative all you want but it will still be null and void and incorrect.

            Israel is as close to a democracy as your going to get in the Middle East? Ah yes, the other pillar of hasbara. Frequently rehashed talking points about Israel being the “only democracy in the Middle East” (Turkey and Lebanon are both democracies) does not give give Israel “the right to do whatever it wants to do.

            Democracy in Israel ? For whom?
            Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government.
            The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy.
            The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism.
            And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid.

            Palestinians are governed by military law, which does not recognize a whole host of basic rights like freedom of speech and assembly, and maintains a draconian military court system. This is the legal farce that the settlements have created: Two peoples, in some cases literally living side by side, are governed by two very different legal systems based solely on their ethnicity.

            Any government whose policy is apartheid, which is patently anti-democratic, forfeits the right to make claims in democracy’s name. It just proves what you and others like you want so much to show in Israel and abroad: trying to make the stink of Israel’s failed policies smell like roses when we all know they just stink.

          • peepsqueek

            “God does not grant land deeds” you are correct, but if Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have it in their books, what is your beef.

            Arabs hold some public offices in Israel, but remember Israel is a tiny Jewish State with their own values and culture, surrounded by Muslim States in which every one of them are signatories to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights:

            Article 19: “There shall be NO crime or punishment EXCEPT as provided for in the Sharia.”

            Article 24: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.”

            Article 25: “The Islamic Sharia is the ONLY source of reference for the explanation or clarification of ANY of the articles of this Declaration.”

            Again, Jews are the only non-Muslim non-Arab population that has the full right of self determination in the Middle East. I believe you would be happy in the banner of Islam flew over 100% of the land.

          • betz55

            “God does not grant land deeds” you are correct, but if Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have it in their books, what is your beef. – It’s your beef, you think the land belongs to Israel – it doesn’t, plain and simple. It’s o-c-c-u-p-i-e-d by Israel. Israel is the apartheid occupier.

            Arabs hold some public offices in Israel – yes, but not Palestinians – but remember Israel is – a tiny apartheid Jewish State – with their own values and culture – as the Palestinians also own their own values and culture – surrounded by Muslim States in which every one of them are signatories to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.

            So? Your cherry picking articles again to spin your narrative? Couldn’t get anywhere with 242, couldn’t get anywhere with democracy, now your deflecting to Sharia. You’re never going to win pipsqueak the facts are not on your side. What will it be next?

            The issue is apartheid Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

            a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

            b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

            c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

            d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

            Again, Jews are the only non-Muslim non-Arab population that has the full right of self determination in the Middle East. Bzzzzzzzz – wrong – Israel is not a legitimate manifestation of self-determination, but a colonial-settler state.

            As I said before Palestinians only have those rights which do not conflict with the “right” that Israeli Jews had to steal most of their land. And that theft will come to an end and either one or two states. I believe you would be happy if the banner of Israel flew over 100% of the land. But that is never going to happen.

          • peepsqueek

            Just for balance, the banner of Islam flies over 99.9% of the Middle East land mass and all fly the colors of the former caliphates. They all have to live under some form of Islamic Sharia. Take a look at some of this quotes from non-Muslims and non-Arabs in the Middle East—

            Kurd Net Daily Online News: 

            “For years the 30 million Kurds spread across those territories have been the world’s largest ethnic group without an independent homeland. Only the Kurds in Iraq, who displaced Iraqi forces in the 1990s when a U.S. and British no-fly zone was in place against Saddam Hussein, have managed to carved out an area of real autonomy.”

            Coptic News:
            
”Since Christianity came to Egypt in 57 A.D., we, the Christians of Egypt, have not had conflict with the Jewish people. Copts have been a marginal population held in captivity for sixteen centuries. We constitute the largest non-Arab, non-Moslem minority in the Middle East. The Church of Alexandria, is one of the oldest organizations in the Middle East. Despite this distinguished history, it is a church that has been under siege since the Islamic invasion.” [Nearly 100 Christian churches were attacked in Egypt last year]

            Assyrian International News Agency (AINA): 
”
            Keep in mind that these Christian minorities, the Assyrians, Armenians, Copts, are actually the original inhabitants of these areas with roots going back thousands of years before Christianity. What we’re seeing is a systematic attempt to cleanse the Middle East of its original inhabitants, this is a continuation of the genocide that took place in Ottoman Turkey in 1915.”

            UN News, GENEVA — 15 March 2013 — “The cradle-to-grave attacks against Bahais in Iran represent one of the broadest and most obvious cases of state-sponsored religious persecution in the world, said Heiner Bielefeldt, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Speaking on 6 March 2013 in Geneva at a side event during the 22nd session of the Human Rights Council, Dr. Bielefeldt discussed the release of a new report by the Baha’i International Community, which documents rising violence against Iranian Baha’is and the utter impunity enjoyed by attackers.”

          • betz55

            Doesn’t matter and no one care, yet another attempt to spin, deflect to no avail.

            My class at UC Santa Cruz thanks you for your non-nonsensical and ludicrous postings. You have proved their point of hasbara. Thanks ! And the kids who were on the fence are now 100% pro-Palestinian.

            Keep up the good work !

          • peepsqueek

            I am happy that your class thinks the current state of affairs in the Middle East is on Israel, and that they are 100% pro-Arab pro-Islam (sarcasm intended). Hamas: No Muslim shall rest until the banner of Islam flies over every inch of the land] — Similar statements have been made by Hezbollah, al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, and others.

            I am happy that your class believes that the Pan-Arab colors on the flag, of which the four Pan-Arab colors were intended to represent a certain Arab dynasty and caliphate. The black was the color of the banner of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphate; white was used by the Umayyad Caliphate; green was used by the Fatimid Caliphate; and red was the flag held by the Khawarij, should be flying over Jerusalem, the holiest City for the Jewish people. Just for balance, attempt to get near the holiest City for the Muslims if you are a non-Muslim. And fly that flag over the West Bank- the birth place of David, Solomon and Jesus. Try to get near the birthplace of Muhammad, where Jews and Christians lived before the invention of Islam.

            Remind your class that Islam would not exist if Muhammed had not started an ISIS-style campaign to conquer and unify the Arabian peninsula under one faith, with the specific goal of outlawing all other faiths, and then spread outwards, and to this day- June18th 2016, all other religious are forbidden in the whole of Saudi Arabia.

            Remind your class that no Islamist will ever support any of your liberal causes, to include women’s rights, gay rights, religious rights, the right of free speech and expression, the right to criticize Islam (I don’t know if that one is a liberal cause),…….

            Your students may be smart because they made it to the University, but if you do not put all the facts on the table, no jury can make a proper final determination. Ask your students whose land they are living on and making a living one, and whose land is the University built on. Who has a right to all of the Americas?

          • robert affinity

            You have been very misled. Here. I’ll let the AUTHORS of UN SC Res 242 tell you what it means.

            http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267
            Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

            • Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

            Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

            • Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring – Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

            Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

            A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

            Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

            Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. … We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

            • MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:

            We didn’t say there should be a withdrawal to the ’67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier… . We did not say that the ’67 boundaries must be forever.

            • Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:

            It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That’s why we didn’t demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to …

            • Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

            Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?

            A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary…

            Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242.

            • Telegram from the Department of State to the U.S. Interests Section of the Spanish Embassy in the United Arab Republic summarizing Rostow’s conversation with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin:

            Rostow said … resolution required agreement on “secure and recognized” boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted.

            • Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pgs 894-96:

            … the question remained, “To what boundaries should Israel withdraw?” On this issue, the American position was sharply drawn, and rested on a critical provision of the Armistice Agreements of 1949. Those agreements provided in each case that the Armistice Demarcation Line “is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims or positions of either party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” … These paragraphs, which were put into the agreements at Arab insistence, were the legal foundation for the controversies over the wording of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Security Council Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967. …

            The agreement required by paragraph 3 of the resolution, the Security Council said, should establish “secure and recognized boundaries” between Israel and its neighbors “free from threats or acts of force,” to replace the Armistice Demarcation Lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June, 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines, as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the resolution, and in a condition of peace.

            On this point, the American position has been the same under both the Johnson and the Nixon Administrations. The new and definitive political boundaries should not represent “the weight of conquest,” both Administrations have said; on the other hand, under the policy and language of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, and of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967, they need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines. …

            This is the legal significance of the omission of the word “the” from paragraph 1 (I) of the resolution, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces “from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” and not “from the territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word “the” failed in the Security Council. It is therefore not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the Cease-Fire Resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation Lines.

            • Jerusalem Post, “The truth about 242,” Nov. 5, 1990:

            Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 … rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to “secure and recognized borders,” which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949. …

            The omission of the word “the” from the territorial clause of the Resolution was one of its most hotly-debated and fundamental features. The U.S., Great Britain, the Netherlands, and many other countries worked hard for five and a half months in 1967 to keep the word “the” and the idea it represents out of the resolution. Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from “the” territories or “all the territories” occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. …

            Those who claim that Resolution 242 is ambiguous on the point are either ignorant of the history of its negotiation or simply taking a convenient tactical position.

            • The New Republic, “Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies,” Oct. 21, 1991:

            Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.

            • The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991:

            Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.”

            • The Wall Street Journal, “Peace still depends on the two Palestines,” April 27, 1988:

            … Resolution 242 establishes three principles about the territorial aspect of the peace-making process:

            1) Israel can occupy and administer the territories it occupied during the Six-Day War until the Arabs make peace.
            2) When peace agreements are reached, they should delineate “secure and recognized” boundaries to which Israel would withdraw.
            3) Those boundaries could differ from the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949.

            • Institute for National Strategic Studies, “The Future of Palestine,” November 1993:

            The second territorial provision of Resolution 242 is that while Israel should agree to withdraw from some of theterritories it occupied in 1967, it need not withdraw from all those territories. The Resolution states that there should be “withdrawal of Israeli’s armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Five and a half months of vigorous diplomacy, public and private, make it very clear why the wording of the sentence took the form it did. Motion after motion proposed to insert the words “the” or “all the” before the word “territories.” They were all defeated, until finally the Soviet Union and the Arab states accepted the language as the best they could get.

            Arthur J. Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations, 1965-1968, and before that a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He helped draft Resolution 242.

            • American Foreign Policy Interests, 1988:

            The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war. The Arab states urged such language; the Soviet Union proposed such a resolution to the Security Council in June 1967, and Yugoslavia and other nations made a similar proposal to the special session of the General Assembly that followed the adjournment of the Security Council. But those views were rejected. Instead, Resolution 242 endorses the principle of the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and juxtaposes the principle that every state in the area is entitled to live in peace within “secure and recognized boundaries.” …

            The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967, lines. I refer to the English text of the resolution. The French and Soviet texts differ from the English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative. In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.

            • Christian Science Monitor, “Middle East peace prospects,” July 9, 1985:

            … all parties are apparently in agreement that the basis for negotiations would be Resolutions 242 and 338 adopted by the UN Security Council. These resolutions, although often referred to in the news media, are inadequately analyzed or explained. I shall attempt to provide a measure of enlightenment.

            * Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.

            * If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations.

            * Any ambiguity in this regard has been resolved by Resolution 338, unanimously adopted by the Security Council on Oct. 22, 1973. Resolution 338 reaffirms Resolution 242 in all its parts and requires negotiations between the parties concerned aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

            * Is Resolution 242 self-executing? The answer is no. Negotiations are necessary to put flesh on the bones of the resolution, as Resolution 338 acknowledges.

            * Is Israel’s withdrawal confined to “minor” border rectifications? No. Resolution 242 reaffirms the right of every area state ‘to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.’

            * How are secure and recognized boundaries to be achieved to enable every state to live in peace free from threats or acts of force? By negotiation, agreement, and accepted settlement.

            • U.S. Senate, The Arab-Israeli Dispute, 6, pgs 14-16, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 50:

            At no time in my meetings with Foreign Minister Riad did I give him such an assurance [of a complete Israeli withdrawal]. It would have been foolish to make such an assurance, when the whole object of Resolution 242 was to allow flexibility in negotiations of territorial boundaries.

            • New York Times, “What Goldberg didn’t say,” letters, March 12, 1980:

            Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. I wanted to make clear that Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank.

            In a number of speeches at the U.N. in 1967, I repeatedly stated that the armistice lines fixed after 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was particularly true of Jerusalem. At no time in these many speeches did I refer to East Jerusalem as occupied territory.

            Baron George-Brown (George A. Brown) was the British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968. He helped draft Resolution 242.

            • In My Way, pgs 226-27, qtd. in the American Journal of International Law, “The illegality of the Arab attack on Israel of October 6, 1973,” Eugene Rostow:

            [Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.

            • Jerusalem Post, Jan. 23, 1970, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

            I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council.

            I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said “Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,” and not from “the” territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.

            J. L. Hargrove was Senior Adviser on International Law to the United States Mission to the United Nations, 1967-1970:

            • Hearings on the Middle East before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 92nd Congress, 1st Session 187 (1971), qtd. in the American Journal of International Law, “The illegality of the Arab attack on Israel of October 6, 1973,” Eugene Rostow:

            The provision of Resolution 242 which bears most directly on the question which you raised, Congressman, is subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the resolution, which envisages “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

            The language “from territories” was regarded at the time of the adoption of the resolution as of high consequence because the proposal put forward by those espousing the Egyptian case was withdrawal from “the territories.” In the somewhat minute debate which frequently characterizes the period before the adoption of a United Nations resolution, the article “the” was regarded of considerable significance because its inclusion would seem to imply withdrawal from all territories which Israel had not occupied prior to the June war, but was at the present time occupying.

            Consequently, the omission of “the” was intended on our part, as I understood it at the time and was understood on all sides, to leave open the possibility of modifications in the lines which were occupied as of June 4, 1967, in the final settlement.

  • betz55

    @pipsqueak: your post: You might attempt to think things through before you laugh and post at the same time. The banner of Islam already flies over 99.9% of the Middle East land mass, plus 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs live in Israel proper as citizens on land that hypocritical activists say is ethnically cleansed. Laugh at that hypocrite! Hamas: No Muslim shall rest until the banner of Islam flies over every inch of the land.

    Had collective Arab Countries accepted the one tiny Jewish State, instead of choosing war, Palestinian Arabs would be celebrating 68 years of independent Palestinian Statehood today, with pre 1967 lines. It is 2016 and Palestinian Arabs are still throwing rocks and firing rockets at Israeli civilian populations, and expect a different result.

    There are 57 declared Muslim states in the United Nations, and one tiny Jewish state, and the one tiny Jewish State pissses you off.

    If you believe Israel to be a [true apartheid state], please tell us all: Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Israeli Arabs? Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Israeli Arabs? Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Israeli Arabs? Which Israeli buses refuse to board Israeli Arabs? In what elections are Israeli Arabs not allowed to vote? In what area of public life are Arab women not allowed to serve?

    The answer: You can try and spin the semantics all you want – Israel Arabs – no, no quite, it’s the Palestinians.
    Proof Israel is a true apartheid state:
    Which Israeli hospitals refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
    Which Israeli restaurants refuse to serve Palestinians?:All
    Which Israeli universities refuse to admit Palestinians?:All
    Which Israeli buses refuse to board Palestinians?:All
    In what elections are Palestinians not allowed to vote? All
    In what area of public life are Arab women not allowed to serve?All, why would they?

    Laugh at that hypocrite! Israel: No Israeli shall rest until the banner of Israel flies over every inch of the land.

    Likud party platform:The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

    Yes, it is 2016 and had Israel accepted the State of Palestine, instead of choosing war, Israelis would be celebrating 68 years of peace with pre 1967 lines.

    It is 2016 and Israeli illegal settler squats are still beating, killing, burning, running over, stealing land resources and celebrating the death of Palestinians and expect a different result.

    As for Hamas? You are ignoring the fact that Israel helped Hamas rise in the 1980s to defeat the PLO and then when the PLO ceased being effective advocates for its people, it embraced it and sidelined Hamas.

    The Wall Street Journal
    How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
    http://online.wsj.com/article/

    You can’t accuse Hamas while ignoring all the right wingers in Israel who call for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinains. Your a hypocrite and not very good one at that. As for Muslims, get some education, demographically the largest portion of Muslims is in Indonesia..