This has now been proven to you.

This isn’t a geometry problem and you haven’t “proven” anything except that you can’t seem to muster any independent thinking to attack Carter, but must resort to CAMERA to find your material. That’s sorta like a comedian turning to David Duke to come up with jokes about Blacks and Jews.

Regarding the withdrawal phrase of 242, whether the word ‘all’ is there or not is irrelevent for several reasons:

1. The preamble of 242 states: ‘Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war…’ When reading the resolution, it has to be read in its entirety taking into account the preamble. As the preamble makes it clear that the acquisition of territory by war is not allowed, anyone who claims that the withdrawal phrase should be interpreted as ‘only some that the side i’m cheering for can pick and choose’ isn’t reading the Resolution properly. It’s interesting to note that both the US and Israel tried unsuccessfully to pressure Caradon to remove the inadmissability sentence from the preamble.

2. There are other areas of the resolution where the word ‘all’ isn’t included eg ‘Affirms further the necessity for guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of through international waterways in the area’, but the meaning is clear that it applies to all navigation through all international waterways. Same goes for the withdrawal phrase. If you see a sign in a park saying ‘keep off the grasss’, do you think to yrself, ‘they don’t say keep off ALL the grass!’ ? Of course not…

3. I don’t know if you or anyone else reading this noticed, but yr bit you quoted from Wiki was actually from CAMERA. What Caradon says several years later, while interesting, isn’t relevant like the discussions and debate during the drafting of the Resolution and the statements made immediately after. You won’t find any of that at CAMERA, which is after all a highly biased pro-Israel site lacking in credibility. During a meeting to debate the draft resolution, he quoted from the British Foreign Secretary: ‘Britain does not accept war as a means of accepting disputes, nor that a state should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of war. This means that Israel must withdraw. But equally, Israel’s neighbours must recognise its right to exist, and it must enjoy security within its frontiers. What we must work for in this area is a durable peace, the renunciation of all aggressive designs, and an end to policies which are inconsistant with peace.’ (UNSCOR, 1381st Meeting). Also it has to be noted that Caradon praised the initiative and fairness of the Latin American states and their draft resolution for the General Assembly which urgently requested Israel to withdraw all of its forces from all the territories occupied by it. Caradon’s focus was on balance, and he didn’t see the withdrawal of troops from all occupied territory as being inconsistant with negotiating borders.

Now that I’ve wandered over to the CAMERA site, I see that’s where yr getting yr ‘talking points’ from about Carter’s book. How about instead of relying on incredibly biased rubbish, you try reading the book for yrself?

It is incumbent on Israel to find someone to take Shebaa Farms off its hands. Hezbollah claims it is Lebanese & continues fighting at least partly for this reason. If it is Syrian, then let Israel return it to Syria & give Hezbollah one less excuse to continue fighting.

Regarding Lord Caradon, what the original writer of a document meant is interesting & useful information, but certainly not relevant or operative in terms of how the document is understood & implemented today. Strict constructionists are ones who believe we today must interpret the Constitution according to the Founders original intent. But that’s not the way law is, or should be decided. This is also true of the Talmudic rabbis who understand that even if God Himself believes a pt of law should be decided one way, the rabbis are entitled to contradict & rule the opposite way.

The wording was made deliberately ambiguous so that both sides might find as little as possible to object to. The wording is NOT “clear.”

Carter writes:
Page 71: Israel has relinquished its control over … almost all of Lebanon …

Page 98: [A number of events influenced] Israel’s decision in May 2000 to withdraw almost completely from Lebanon after eighteen years of occupation, retaining its presence only in Shebaa Farms.

On June 16, 2000, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council that “Israeli forces have withdrawn from Lebanon in compliance with resolution 425″ and “in compliance with the line of withdrawal identified by the United Nations.”

(Security Council Resolution 425 called on Israel to “withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory.” The line identified by the United Nations “conform[ed] to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and other documentary material.”)

===========================

No mention of Shebaa farms. Would you agree that if Shebaa farms is Syria - as is apparent by UNSCR 425 - the Lebanon 2000 withdrawal was complete?

It looks again very clear that Carter’s facts are off. Where am I wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Now where am I wrong and how is Carter correct in maintaining his view about UNSCR 242?

Here’s Caradon, from the article:
===========================

It was from occupied territories that the [r]esolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact…East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I[t] was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[12]

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; it would be insanity.[13]

Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the “inadmissibility” principle.[15] 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 1948, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary…[16]

On yr bizarre insistance that the PLO didn’t recognise Israel. Is there a reason you totally ignored the mutual letters of recognition and proceeded to post whatever obscure ‘quotes’ from people I’ve never heard of? Surely yr not going to try to say obscure ‘quotes’ trump an official document like the letters of recognition? So if in the future Hamas officially recognises Israel’s right to exist, and some Hamas member who drives a taxi for a living goes ‘Hold on a second! Israel has no right to exist!’, I expect that you’ll be there quoting an obscure Hamas member and pretending that it means that all official statements are trumped by obscure ones made on a personal level and not on behalf of a group? That’s really silly, and I’d like to know if you hold Israeli members of political parties to the same high standards you do Palestinians…

Why would I or anyone else have any interest in the views of a hack like Stein?

Your claim that UN 242 “clearly does not” required returning all conquered land is of course false. The phrasing of the resolution is somewhat ambiguous, but those like yrself who claim it is crystal clear & supports yr position are fudging in the worst way.

Israel, indeed did NOT withdraw from all Lebanese land in 2000. It retains Shebaa Farms (a pt. which I’ve debated too many times with right wingers like you here). There may be a dispute about whether this territory is Lebanese or Syrian. But even Israel concedes it is not Israeli & should be returned. It has simply refused to return it. Carter is right again on this.

If you want to claim Carter’s book is in error you will have to quote the passages you claim are wrong, not merely list the page numbers. Pg. numbers prove nothing to anyone. I have no idea whether Carter claims what you say he claims. In fact, given your shoddy record I rather doubt Carter writes anything you claim he does unless you provide quotations.

Carter claims admissions by torture are admissable in Israeli courts.

Again, I don’t know what Carter really says since you don’t quote it. Evidence procured by torture may not be admissible in Israeli courts, but since the Shin Bet never concedes that they do torture; or if they abuse prisoners, they claim that what would be called torture in any other country isn’t torture in Israel–there are 1,000 ways to get around such a prohibition & I’m sure the intelligence services use every one.

But you avoid the larger question which is the fact that Israel tortures at all. Now that the Bush Administration has adopted Israel’s views about torture, it becomes that much easier for Israel to claim it looks good in comparison. But the fact is that Israel cannot call itself a traditional western democracy when it is in reality a national security state and an ethnocracy.

As for quoting someone named Sakher Habash, a name I’ve never heard in my life (& I know quite a bit about the Fatah & Hamas leadership), & claiming that his views, even if quoted accurately indicate that Fatah denies a 2 state solution–this is beyond pathetic. If you want to smear Fatah you’ll have to do better than this.

I find this recitation of anti-Palestinian propaganda to be unutterably tiresome. If you want to continue doing so, you’ll have to go back to Pro Semite Undercover where you’ll find much more compatible company. I’ve just about had it.

1. You can google Kenneth Stein’s critique of Carter’s book. Like Stein, I’m disappointed in the factual errors, ommissions, hyperbole, and fabrications. Examples include Carter’s claim (PBS Nov, 2006) that UN RES 242 requires Israel returning “ALL” land (it clearly does not). On pages 71and 98 Carter claims that Israel did not withdraw completely from Lebanon in 2000 (despite the UN Security counsel admitting Israel withdrew completely as per SCR 425, On page 62, Carter quotes Arafat as never calling for Israel’s annhilation (hundreds of quotes prove Arafat called precisely for this from the 1960’s onward). On pages 5 and 59, Carter takes a page out of Chomsky and claims Israel preemptively attacked Jordan in 1967 (when the fact is Jordan was already shelling Tel Aviv and Jerusalem before Israel did anything to Jordan). On page 197, Carter claims admissions by torture are admissable in Israeli courts. I could go on but Carter is quoted as saying his book is completely accurate. No, it’s a major step backwards.

As for the PLO’s compromise for a 2 state solution, check out quotes from Sakher Habash (Fatah) in al-Hayat al-Jadida, Nov. 17, 2000 regarding Palestine on ALL LAND, or Habash again: “The Jews must get rid of Zionism….They must be citizens in the state of the future, the State of Democratic Palestine” (al-Hayat al-Jadida, Jan. 1, 2001). Ziad al Rajoub spoke of the 1974 “stages plan” in Akhbar al-Halil, Jan 24, 2001. Faisal al-Husseini was quoted; “the strategic goal, namely to Palestine from the river to the sea.” (Al-Safir, Mar. 21, 2001 and Al-Arabi, May 24, 2001) and so was Marwan Barghouti with “one state for all the peoples” (July 9, 2001).

Maybe all these top men of Arafat’s failed to get the memo about a 2 state solution? This is all after Camp David 2000. Strange words for Arafat’s top men to say if indeed the PLO is firmly behind a peaceful 2 state solution, don’t you think?