This is democracy... lots of matters are "more about votes," but that doesn't mean they aren't done on a moral level, too.



Look, I agree with lots of what you are saying. Personally, I don't know if our commitment to Israel has ever been fully dissected, and I'm all for taking the scalpel to it. It's not an issue the average american voter thinks about, and the feckless media doesn't know how to handle the gravitas of a situation like Israel.

But my contention is that, in the poll, morality is simply not listed as even a possibility, there is not even an option that on some secondary or teriary level, well-meaning folks name Bill C., or George W. have decided to ramp up support of Israel out of the firm belief that a strong, aggressive Israel represents the lesser of many evils.

Now I'm not saying I agree with their conclusions. Or that presidents are wholly swayed by their own sense of morality, far from it. I'm just saying, that even the decisions of a leader as divorced from reality as a president -- even those decisions are guided both by self-interest, and just maybe, a moral judgment.

Look at the options in the poll: You could argue that any foreign policy in American history has the same basic ingredients. Take fighting communism, for instance:

We had a clear self-interest to open markets and resources in a de-colonizing world.
We had religious reasons to resist a political system that marginalized faith and enforced atheism.
We had pressure from European states to curb the influence of the soviet union; likewise, we had pressure from rubber and tin importers to escalate our defenses in south vietnam, and The Kaiiser Permenente's Valco consortium was a big advocate of anti-communist support in Africa.
Finally, for hawks, fighting communism was a great way to rack up votes.

But we all would agree that we had a moral obligation to fight communism too. Our nation self-interest in doing so does not preclude the possibility of their being a moral edge to our sword as well. I have a feeling Ron Reagan went to sleep on thursday nights, convinced that he was doing the right things for the world.

So why is it not a possibility that the US government "appreciates the morality" of Israel's cause? I can perfectly imagine a situation where president Bush views Israel's aggression as a just war against freedom-haters or what have you, and my disagreement with that world view doesn't mean his ultimate conclusions are totally machiavellian and ammoral.

Perhaps the issue is that they are the only nation in the Middle East that actually supports the US. Can you really name any other country in the world that has supported the US even when their interests do not intersect? I'll bet not.

As for your bogus claim that Israel doesn't accept UNSC 242, that is pure garbage. The Arab world and the anti-Israel lobby have invented your 'commonly understood' resolution, inserting clauses that are directly opposite of what was written. Sorry to tell you the facts, but international laws and rules can not be 'commonly understood' - they are laws and must be strictly adhered to, not what you what them to read. Israel accepted 242 did in 1967 and have since, the Arab nations however not accepted it, nor have they. Yet you have yet to hold them to one single portion of that resolution, why?

Israel did return lands captured from Egypt and Jordan, guess what they have peace, even though both nations have repeatedly violated those peace treaties, Israel has not. Has Syria made a single move to make peace, no them haven't so there is no basis for you lie. But then again, Israel is not required to return to the cease-fire borders and no matter how many times you repeat the same lies, they remain just that a lies.

This is the resolution in question, is it not? (Emphasis on the disputed line) (Oh, and on one I feel has been violated with Israel's recent aggressive foreign policies. And by "policies". i mean rockets.)

Depending on whose interpretation you choose to believe, Israel may and may not be in violation of this resolution. Arabs believe it to mean that they are entitled to all the lands they lost in the Six day war, Israel maintains that the lands in quesion are somewhat more limited. I do not see any addendums here that have been added by, as you put it, by the "The Arab world and the anti-Israel lobby". Could you point them out for me?

From the resolution.

That pretty well spells it out. And just about every country but Israel accepts that.

This is the game Israel played to allow them to practically interpret the Palestinians out of the last 22% that hadn't previously been taken from them if they wished.



The Israelis, obviously with the acquiescence of their client, the US, worked mightily to get the original (the) removed from that line in the resolution and have ridden the slight ambiguity into 40 years of hell for the Palestinians, themselves(Blowback I call it) and the US(More blowback as their supporter and financier), and others. Just about every country in the world understands what the resolution means minus its lawyerly games. It means return to the prewar 1967 borders, allowing for some agreeable minor adjustments between the contending parties. But the Likudist oriented Israeli flacks like Loreng will continually divert and distract from the matter by screaming to high heaven that Israel is just a democracy hated by its Arab neighbors and of course the best friend the US ever had. Reality has no room in their world. That "friendship" is an albatross around this countries' neck but the interests of the US don't compute for them. Just keep delivering the tribute and shut up.



As far as a dissection Mearshiemer and Walt have made a pretty good beginning. You can start here.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html


Well I didn't write the poll but between religion, pragmatism and guilt over the holocaust I thought the morality part was pretty adequately covered, but I can see how you might not. For instance I tend to merge morality and pragmatism in the broader sense. The Golden Rule to me is a highly pragmatic rule when it comes to long term good human relations. I also realize some of my comments on this board might not always reflect the best expression of it.

Just a few problems with that interpretation. Such as the part about

was not directed at Israel since they did not acquire any land by war. According to the authors of the resolution it was in fact directed at Egypt, Syria and Jordan that all took parts of the Mandate territory. Israel however has three international laws that state that ALL land West of the Jordan is theirs. The Arabs do not have any. But that just a fact what the heck.

The part of about refugees was just that. Just so happens that for every Arab that lost a home (about 75% left without ever seeing any Israelis according to Arab accounts), two Jews were expelled from Arab countries for the crime of being Jewish, hummm ethnic cleansing anybody. How much UN support for them as EVER been offered? Any at all? No the UN gave no aid to those refugees, I wonder why? Why are 'Palestinians' the only refugees in the history of the world considered refugees when they are living where they were born, their parents born, even their grand and in some cases great-grand parents born? How does that happen? At the same time that was going on, over 10 million people from various conflicts were made refugees. None today except the 'Palestinians' are still considered refugees, none of them have ever been given compensation for lost land. I wonder why, guess them people must be special?

The 'Palestinians' received 77% of the original Mandate they call themselves Jordan now. Pretending that somehow Israel is 'occupying Palestinian' territory is not reality. Consider the facts if you will (which I doubt). The 'Palestinians' renounced all claims to Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Himmah Area back in 1964, I wonder why they did that? And they did not make any claim to that territory until 1968 note the year please. So how can it be 'Occupied Palestinian territory'? Please explain to me how they claim a year after Israel liberated that territory from 3 nations none of which has the word 'Palestine' in them, can suddenly be 'Palestinian'. Talk about inventing the facts. Whereas even the UN Charter supports the contention that ALL land West of the Jordan is part of a Jewish National Homeland.

Please refute those facts. Since your opinion seems to supercede the facts.

You are skirting my question. I did not ask you to confirm whether or not Israel is in violation of this rsolution. I simply want you to verify your fallacious conclusion that somewhere in the body of that text, there is an addendum that was added by the "Arab World and the Anti-Israel Lobby".

Please point to some source for this assertion.



Please point to the three international laws that state that all of the land west of the Jordan belongs to The State of Israel.

On the first point Stephen Schwebel, a former President of the International Court of Justice in the Hague UNSC 242

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former US State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case:

* Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

Israel only entered the West Bank in 1967 after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines; additionally, Iraqi forces crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, even the United Nations rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War.

Regardless of how many times the Palestinian Arabs claim otherwise, Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fundamental sources of international legality decide the question in Israel's favor. The last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory, including the sector east of the Jordan River, almost 80% of the original Mandated territory, that was given to Palestinian Arabs and Emir Abdullah to create the country of Trans-Jordan (later renamed Jordan). Moreover, the rights under the Mandate were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, after the termination of the League of Nations in 1946.

Lord Caradon UNSC 242 revisited

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.” The 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.

Max M. Kampelman, former counselor of the US State Department UN Security Council 242

said in a letter to The New York Times on April 8, 2002, referring to "territories recaptured from Jordan in 1967, territories that Jordan captured in its war against Israel in 1948-49":

* The United States voted in favor of Resolution 242 only after insisting that "all" had no place in it. The United Nations instead referred to the need to arrive at "secure and recognized" boundaries.

No one realistically expects Israel to withdraw before its security is assured. UNSCR 242 emphatically does not put any preconditions on Israel (or the Palestinian Arabs for that matter). Israel is perfectly within its rights to remain in place until there is a negotiated peace agreement acceptable to Israel as well as to the Palestinian Arabs. Israel moved into the West Bank and Gaza Strip areas as part of a defensive war started by the Arab enemies of Israel. Israel does not have to move out of those areas unless and until there is a negotiated peace that offers Israel security guarantees that make it unnecessary to keep control of the areas. Every terrorist incident proves that the time to trust the Palestinian Arabs has not yet arrived.

Despite the very clear record on the purpose and meaning of UNSCR 242, misconceptions continue. For example, on January 23, 2001 the New York Times was forced to print this correction:

* An article yesterday about peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel to withdraw its armed forces "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israel to withdraw "to its pre-1967 borders."

Eugene W. RostowRostow in his own words

Each of those state the opposite of the previous claims.

As for the land claim well there is San Remo Treaty 1920

Covenant of the League of Nations Mandate

Article 22 - Palestine Mandate Article 22
Please read the entire article but just two articles spell out the limits,

ART. 5.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

ART. 25.

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

And finally the UN Charter Articles 75 - 80
UN Charter

Israel has legal claim to the land, now can somebody produce a SINGLE law or treaty that refutes any of the above? Before anybody uses UNGA 181 please read what the UN Charter has to say about General Assembly Resolutions, they are governed by CHAPTER IV UN Charter

Article 10
The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.

This is from the Syria representative to the General Assembly in 1947

"In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights"

I think I will just let his words speak for themselves

None of what you wrote regarding the first point supports this assertion:



Please provide a quote from one of the authors of the resolution stating that this:



...was only directed at Egypt, Syria and Jordan.





Did the State of Israel exist in 1920? I thought it didn't exist until later... :hmm:



The Mandate ended just prior to the existence of the State of Israel and, therefore, can't possibly apply to that State.

What were the boundaries that defined the State of Israel when it declared statehood?



What exactly does this have to do with it? There are no trust territories, so these articles apply to nobody at the moment. How would they apply to the State of Israel - which is not a trust territory and doesn't serve as administrator of a trust territory?

This is not accurate. In the good old days they intermarried with the inhabitants and became indistinguishable. (Recent DNA surveys of the UK have proved this.)
The Norman kings even started speaking English - by Edward III they identified themselves as English.

The Jewish state religion has rules/customs which have resulted in reduced marriage outside the religion, discouraging conversion and inheriting being "jewish". This how it can claim in countries such as the UK that being jewish is not an elective religious persuasion but an ethnicity and claim the protection of Anti-racism legislation.