Who should that land go back to? Jordan and Egypt? Actually there was the return of land to many Arab countries following the war.
The resolution also does not specifically discuss what lands because the diplomats involved in drafting it intentionally left it that way. So I don't know where you got the 48 borders from. Too bad the Arabs chose not to accept the 1948 borders and instead their leaders launched war after war to shift the anger of their people.
And while the resolution does discuss land for peace, it is only through negotiated settlement. Has there been one? Yes there was with countries like Egypt. No there wasn't with an entity called Palestine and since there is no negotiated settlement, Israel is not violating international law.
What are you arguing with there? Aside from telling me I'm intelligent, I don't know anything else that has validity in your post.
Israel is there. Israel is not violating any international law and that is why the U.N. has not done anything against Israel other than put unjust pressure on it because of its large Arab influence. Whether you like that or not, doesn't interest me really. It is my opinion that Israel should give nothing back and unleash with all its might to completely demilitarize the region - but that is my opinion and we're not arguing over that. If you have something to say as to why Israel is violating international law please let me know.
-Rudey
--There is nothing the Economist misinterpreted but you can say that instead of looking at the facts.
Quote:
Originally posted by swissmiss04
Rudey, I'm not so sure that you know what you're talking about. Have you actually read anything about Res 242? Do you know the history behind it? I'm guessing not. Rather than spout off what you've been told, why not actually investigate? I can tell you are pretty intelligent, so why not put that good brain to use??
"Exchanging land for peace." Sounds like "Give them back their land to prevent further problems." The actual language of the resolution states that Israel has no right to land acquired through conflict. Whether or not you view that as a condemnation of the attacks is up to you. But it does say that the land was not theirs to keep. Sort of like when one kid steals another kid's toy. Mom or Dad intervenes and gives it back to who it belongs to. The other kid is pissed, but that's life. Don't take what isn't yours.
The Economist is not a scholarly resource anyways. Unless it is, there is always a chance for misinterpretation, bias, and other journalistic hangups. I did like your citation of Polin. Granted, even scholars have their biases, but at least he disclosed in an intelligent manner.
Oh and I'll have far too much to do in Egypt to do you any favors. My deepest apologies.
|