President Trump continues to attempt to plug the hole that AIPAC and Israel created in the Zion Dyke. To no avail. His latest comment was to tell us we just need to be friends and let go of any misunderstandings… “Republicans’ Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton just want to wipe Palestinians off the face of the earth. The progressive Democrats are siding with the AIPAC Republicans and the liberal Democrats are siding with Libertarians. A Farking MESS!
With two solid AIPAC candidates running for President, the future of America is looking more and more bleak. Putin stated that a Trump presidency would change – nothing. AIPAC destroys any candidate that does not support Israel – which is election interference. But AIPAC has always been – above the law. They helped drive the January 6th infiltration and arrests of Patriots. They drive the infiltration of the pro-Palestine protests. They created a Hunger Game Hollywood. And they run the CIA.
AIPAC is also quite active in Europe, albeit under its subsidiaries: The European Jewish Congress. Friends of Judea and Sumaria. European Coalition for Israel. Christian Zionist current. European Jewish Association. Transatlantic Institute. B’nai B’rith Europe. Europe Israel Public Affairs – which is the equivalent of AIPAC, an umbrella for Zionist control.
Their main platitudes include – hatred of Russia, hatred of China, hatred of Christians and Islam, and War is always preferred. They are running the western show in Ukraine. Many of their PR tweeters present claims of self pity – ‘look how little we are in a sea of Muslim countries’. While wielding death on Muslims. And death on Ukrainians. Why do they hate Ukrainians? Because they literally hate – everyone. Especially the weak and the poverty stricken.
We are cattle under their eyes which is why we are now enslaved – corralled.
Unfortunately, Trump is onboard the AIPAC train. The same AIPAC that has been trying to destroy him from the progressive left and rhino right. The same AIPAC that put MAGA patriots in jail. Completely confusing the game plan. Are the slew of democrats converting to MAGA – AIPAC shills set to undermine Trump once again? The evangelical church is eerily silent. Rabbis are robustly vocal.
How do we extricate America from this enslavement?
When attempting to enter the website of Europe Israel Public Affairs, I was redirected to Israel National News whose headline is, “IDF Approves Plans For Invasion of Lebanon”. Their goal is to turn Lebanon into a greater Gaza ~ According to Defense Minister Gallant. According to Hezbollah there are warships stationed on Lebanon’s coastline and air force strikes commenced last night. Ground troops are being assembled. Just in time for the US to issue a bill requiring registration for the draft ages 18-25.
The U.S. is sending Ukraine 7 US Patriot air defense missile systems that were contracted for purchase by other countries, the White House announced Thursday. Upping the Ukraine war.
US simultaneously is sending 1000 war drones to Taiwan while Taiwan has followed the Israeli mantra: A new bill was passed in Taiwan, ‘Contempt of Parliament’. The bill contains a clause which can impose fines and even a prison term of up to one year for officials who disrespect parliament. While China has declared that Taiwan separatists will receive the death penalty. All staged for a very unclean War.
Biden is at Camp David – under the guise of preparing for the Trump/Biden debate next week. It is looking more likely that war hawks are pushing WWIII and Biden has been taken into ‘the basement’. With AIPAC Trump sidelined.
Did Russia offload some weapons in Cuba before leaving? Is North Korea on heavy alert to assist? How will the Middle East react to Israel bombing Lebanon? The UN has again issued empty threats while Israel’s new war cabinet is completely rogue. The ‘deterrent strategy’ is Israel’s response to everything. Of course, after Lebanon, they will want Iran. And then the entirety of the Middle East will blow up!
The rift between Netanyahu and the White House is seemingly a stage play. Netanyahu claims Biden is withholding needed weapons, while The Pentagon claims weapons are sent weekly. Leaving the US open to assault. Possibly internally. Illegal immigrants trained at US military bases.
Although Trump appears to continue to receive Zionist money, he has touted his anti-War stance since 2016. And perhaps that stance is what is fueling WWIII before he can be elected. It would definitely appear that war is no longer a possibility, but a rapidly moving forward reality. The Zionists are out of time. Upping their gamut, given they have lost control of their power vacuum, not point in waiting would seem to be the agenda.
US Strategic Reserves remain on empty. The Department of Energy claims a contract for 3 million barrels at $77 average is on the table with delivery – November. Twice the cost of the inventory under Trump’s direction of $30 per barrel. The reserves comprise 714 million barrels when full – 3 million = .0042 or .4%.
So we have no fuel reserves, we have no weapons because we keep giving them away. We have two major wars ongoing and a third prepped for Taiwan while the Zionists lead all decision making in Washington. Who is going to come to our rescue? Europe? Canada? They are both equally sitting ducks having never built adequate militaries and instead relying on US Taxpayers to foot their bills.
The Zionists running these wars, pushing America into a debt hole purposefully to the tune of $41 trillion according to the Treasury Balance Sheet, is about to become an internal riff they can’t afford to lose – and certainly a civil war is not off the table…
______
Israeli Middle East Foreign Policy
Have Palestinian, Hezbollah and Iranian attacks upon Israel since Oct 7th 2023 succeeded in any way?
The October 2023, the attacks from Palestinian groups, Hezbollah, and Iran against Israel that began on October 7, 2023, had significant immediate impacts, including loss of life, destruction, and heightened tensions in the region.
The attacks have intensified international discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and may have affected diplomatic relations in the region. They have also prompted discussions about security policies in Israel and responses from neighboring countries. Therefore has the influence of the UN reduced after its criminal involvement on Oct 7th where its employees worked together with Hamas terrorists?
Has the Red Cross failure to visit Israeli hostages resulted that Israel has expelled the Red Cross from Israel? Has British & French written Chapter VI UNSCR242 which never once mentioned “Palestine”, totally undermined the ICC court which condemned Israel?
The United Nations has often faced criticism regarding its effectiveness and impartiality in conflicts involving Israel and Palestine. Allegations of involvement or cooperation between UN employees and militant groups can undermine the UN’s credibility, leading to calls for reforms or changes in its operations. However, the overall influence of the UN is assessed based on various factors, including member states’ support and the political context.
On September 18, 2024 the UN-nations General Assembly adopted a resolution based upon Chapter VII of the UN Charter! That resolution demanded that Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The resolution received overwhelming support, with 124 nations in favor, 14 against, and 43 abstentions.
The key points of this UNGA Resolution which somehow switched from Chapter VI UNSCR242 to Chapter VII UN ultimatum decreed upon Israel by 124 nations, many of which do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel. (1) Israel must comply with international law and withdraw its military forces. As if a UNGAR qualifies as “international law”?! (2) Immediate cessation of new settlement activity. As if the UNSCR242 which suggested “occupied territory” somehow switched to a direct UN condemnation of “occupied territory”?!! (3) Evacuation of settlers from occupied land. As if the UNGAR assumes that it has the power to determine the international borders of the Jewish state. When did Israel become a protectorate mandate of the United Nations?
(4) Dismantling parts of the separation wall constructed in the occupied West Bank. As if the terrorist bombing of children school buses played no part in the construction of that separation wall in the first place. (5) Return of land, immovable property, and assets seized since the occupation began in 1967. As if Israel lost that War. This revisionist history represents an absolute abomination on the order of the Holocaust denial! (6) Reparation for damage caused by Israel’s occupation. This 6th UNGA demand as absurd as the (5th) UNGA demand. (7) Allowance for Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their place of origin. This last demand duplicates Arafat’s ‘right of return’ propaganda.
The core issue of this latest UNGAR, it promotes British, French, Russian, strategic interests. A powerful Jewish state that dominates the Middle East does not sit well with their hostile strategic interests as expressed through Chapter VI UNSCR242 without Israel’s participation in the wording of that foreign nation written UN document.
The ICRC’s role in conflict situations is crucial for humanitarian access. If it has failed to visit Israeli hostages, this could lead to significant diplomatic fallout. However, the expulsion of the Red Cross would represent a serious escalation and would likely complicate humanitarian efforts further.
UNSCR 242, which emphasizes the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,” does not mention “Palestine.” The ICC operates independently and its views on Israel are shaped by various international laws and political contexts. The interaction between past resolutions and current actions often fuels debate over their implications.
UN resolutions are often viewed as recommendations rather than binding laws, leading to debates about their enforceability. The idea that the UN can dictate the borders of Israel is highly controversial and raises questions about sovereignty and the role of international bodies. The wall was constructed in response to security concerns, but its implications for Palestinians and its legality under international law remain disputed.
Calls for reparations and the return of land seized during the occupation are tied to broader discussions about justice and historical grievances, often seen as unrealistic by many Israelis. The framing of these issues often reflects broader geopolitical dynamics, as various nations have strategic interests in the region. The perspectives of countries like the UK, France, and Russia can influence international actions and resolutions at the UN.
Israel charges that the UN-nations corrupt beyond all reform. The same applies to International courts. The Israeli victory in the June 1967 War lies outside of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This court has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever to read UNSCR242 which suggests, Chapter VI, occupied territories — as “biased” law. This confusion over Chapter VI vs. Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the ICJ inaccuracies in opinion, directly challenge the credibility of that court.
Israel consistently rejects accusations that its treatment of Palestinians amounts to apartheid. It accuses UN bodies and international tribunals of “the Jews poisoned the wells! the Jews murdered Xtian children to make matza – blood libel slanders!
UN-nations double standards in international law enforcement has fueled tension among Israelis and BRICS nations to withdrawal from the UN and expel this corrupt organization from lands of all countries which break off diplomatic relations with the United Nations.
The notion that the UN can dictate Israel’s borders remains highly controversial, raising questions about state sovereignty and the legitimacy of international interventions. The 1949 Armistice Agreements (following the Arab-Israeli War) established temporary borders, but these were never recognized as permanent.
Consequent to the June 1967 War Israel recaptured the illegally seized lands of Samaria and E. Jerusalem. The Jordanian April 24, 1950 annexation of Mandatory Palestine, widely considered illegal and void. This condemnation included the Arab League. Only England, Iraq and Pakistan recognized this Jordanian annexation! Jordan renounced its claim to Samaria and E. Jerusalem in 1988.
The US acknowledged Jordan’s illegal annexation without public approval. The International community, meaning Great Power imperialist interests, their revisionist history unilaterally regard Samaria and E. Jerusalem Palestinian territory. Despite the glaring and obvious fact that no Arab Palestinian State has ever existed in all human history.
The framing of these UNSC & UNGA Resolutions reflects broader geopolitical dynamics, with countries like the UK, France, and Russia and non-aligned 3rd World African nations have vested interests in the region. Their actions and resolutions at the UN can significantly influence the situation.
The attacks significantly escalated tensions in the region and intensified international discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They may have influenced diplomatic relations, although the extent of this influence is still unfolding. The UN’s response, particularly the shift from Chapter VI to Chapter VII resolutions, reflects a significant political shift, although whether this constitutes a success for the attackers is complex and depends on one’s perspective. The UN resolutions, however, are not legally binding and their enforceability is highly questionable.
The differing approaches of UNSCR 242 (Chapter VI) and the subsequent UNGA resolution (Chapter VII) highlight the complex and evolving nature of international responses to the conflict.
UNGA Resolution (September 18, 2024): This resolution, based on Chapter VII, represents a significant escalation in the UN’s stance. However, its demands are highly controversial and raise serious questions about international law, state sovereignty, and the historical context of the conflict. Many of the demands are seen as unrealistic and biased by Israel and its allies. The shift from Chapter VI to Chapter VII represents a notable change in the UN’s approach, but the resolution’s enforceability remains highly doubtful.
The reports of the Red Cross failing to visit Israeli hostages and the ICC’s involvement in the conflict suggest further tensions and challenges for all sides. Israel’s potential expulsion of the Red Cross and disputes over the ICC’s legitimacy indicate an escalating situation.
The UN has been quite vocal about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, the UN has adopted numerous resolutions related to this ongoing conflict. UN Security Council Resolutions (1967–1989): During this period, the UNSC directly addressed the Arab–Israeli conflict through 131 resolutions.
UN General Assembly Resolution (2024): In September 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution that demands of Israel, “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. 124 UN member States voted in favor of this “One Hand Clapping” UNGA Resolution.
This most recent UNGA Resolution demands that Israel must comply with international law and withdraw its military forces. It should immediately cease all new settlement activity. Evacuation of settlers from occupied land is required. Dismantling parts of the separation wall constructed inside the occupied “west bank” is also demanded. Israel must return land, immovable property, and assets seized since the 1967 “occupation”. All cultural property and assets taken from Balestinians and Balestinian institutions should be returned. Palestinians displaced during the occupation should be allowed to return to their place of origin, and reparation for damage caused by the occupation is necessary.
This latest UNGA Resolution stems from an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July, which declared Israel’s continued presence in the Territory as “unlawful” and emphasized that all states have an obligation not to recognize this decades-long occupation.
UN Security Council Resolutions (1967–1989): During this period, the UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted 131 resolutions directly addressing the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unlike Chapter VII resolutions (which can include economic or military sanctions), most of these resolutions were so-called Chapter VI resolutions, which didn’t specify enforcement measures.
Security Council’s Stance on Settlements: In a separate resolution, the Security Council reaffirmed that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 (including East Jerusalem) has no legal validity. Such settlements are considered a flagrant violation of international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and security. [[THIS REPRESENTS A BLOOD LIBEL, THE JEWS POISONED THE WELLS SLANDER OF ISRAEL.]] Such settlements are considered a flagrant violation of international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two states living side-by-side in peace and security.
In summary, while the UN has consistently engaged with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through various resolutions, the direct invocation of Chapter VII has been less common. Nonetheless, the situation remains complex, and the UN’s efforts reflect the international community’s ongoing pursuit of peace and stability in the region.
UNSC Resolution 478. Adopted in 1980, this resolution invoked Chapter VII of the UN Charter. UNSC Resolution 478 notes Israel’s non-compliance with UNSC Resolution 476 and condemns Israel’s 1980 Jerusalem Law, which declared Jerusalem to be Israel’s “complete and united” capital. This Resolution considers the declaration of Jerusalem, a violation of international law.
In summary, both the recent UNGA resolution and the 1980 UNSC resolution demonstrate the UN’s engagement with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and its efforts to address violations of international law.
Chapter VI: This chapter deals with the “Pacific Settlement of Disputes.” Resolutions falling under Chapter VI encourage negotiation, mediation, and peaceful solutions. They don’t impose binding measures or sanctions. Chapter VII is titled “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression.” Resolutions under Chapter VII can include economic or military sanctions and are legally binding.
UNSCR 242 and Chapter VI: Adopted after the 1967 Six-Day War, is a pivotal resolution related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It emphasized the principle of “land for peace” and called for Israel’s withdrawal from territories occupied during the war. Importantly, UNSCR 242 falls under Chapter VI. It doesn’t explicitly invoke enforcement measures but rather encourages negotiations and peaceful settlement.
Recent Developments: Chapter VII Condemnation: Fast-forward to September 2024: The UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution that invoked Chapter VII against Israel. This resolution demands that Israel ends its “unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. By invoking Chapter VII, the UNGA signaled a shift from mere encouragement to a more forceful stance. The resolution deplores Israel’s breaches of international law and recognizes the need for accountability. It emphasizes that Israel must bear legal consequences for its actions.
So, in this geopolitical saga, the UN moved from urging dialogue (Chapter VI) to asserting legal obligations (Chapter VII). How the United Nations (UN) transitions from Chapter VI to Chapter VII in its resolutions and peacekeeping efforts. In recent years, the Security Council has shifted its approach. When authorizing peace operations in volatile post-conflict settings where the State cannot maintain security and public order, the Council now invokes Chapter VII. to reinstate international peace and security.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) invoked Chapter VII of the UN Charter in response to Saddam Hussein’s audacious invasion of Kuwait in 1990. On November 29, 1990, the UNSC passed Resolution 678 under the guidance of several key nations: Canada, the USSR, Britain, and the US. This Resolution issued a stern ultimatum to Iraq to pull out of Kuwait or else. It offered Iraq one final opportunity to implement Resolution 660 (1990), which had demanded that Iraq unconditionally withdraw its forces from Kuwait. The resolution empowered UN member states to use “all necessary means” to force Iraq out of Kuwait if it didn’t comply by the deadline of Jan 15, 1991.
As a result, Resolution 678 became the legal basis for the Gulf War (also known as the First Gulf War). When the coalition forces led by the United States and supported by various other countries launched Operation Desert Storm, they were acting under the authority granted by this resolution. Fast-forward to recent times: On June 27, 2013, the UNSC unanimously agreed to remove Iraq from Chapter VII sanctions–a significant milestone after more than two decades of post-invasion repercussions.
Chapter VII allows the Council to authorize “measures not involving military force.” These can include economic sanctions or diplomatic actions. In the case of North Korea’s invasion of South Korea, Chapter VII permits the use of military force. When the Security Council invokes Chapter VII, it defines the meaning of security.
UN Head Guterres BARRED From Israel After Appalling Iran Missile Response (youtube.com)
The Real Reason Macron wants to Ban Arms Supply to Israel… – YouTube
Wars produce propaganda. Warning: all listeners of “NEWS” should discern between “opinions” from “facts”. For example: the UN spews out shit like acute diarrhea!
UNSCR 242 and all other UNSC and UNGA condemnations of Israel since 1967 base themselves on Chapter VI of the UN Charter and not Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Chapter VI “opinion” concerning “occupied territories” and “land for peace” and “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”, “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence”… Opinion: just that simple. Fact: Never existed an Arab Balestinian state not in Samaria nor in Gaza captured from Egypt in the June 1967 war.
Israel expands bombardment of Lebanon, striking Tripoli for the first time – YouTube
UNSCR 242 is indeed framed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which deals with the peaceful resolution of disputes. This means that the recommendations in the resolution are primarily advisory rather than binding. The absence of an independent Balestinian state prior to 1967 is a fact, as the territories were controlled by Egypt and Jordan. This historical context shapes ongoing debates about legitimacy and rights. The resolution emphasizes the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the 1967 conflict, alongside guarantees for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states in the area.
This omission has fueled different narratives: Arab states and their allies see it as implicitly supporting Palestinian statehood through the implied withdrawal and the principle of self-determination; Israel and its allies emphasize the resolution’s focus on the states involved in the 1967 war (Egypt, Jordan, and Israel), without directly addressing Balestinian statehood. The emphasis on direct negotiations a highly significant aspect of Israel’s stance, as historical agreements (e.g., Camp David Accords) were reached through bilateral discussions. The call for negotiations underscores the desire for a mutually acceptable solution rather than one imposed by external entities.
The assertion that there has never been an independent Balestinian state is factually correct in the sense that prior to the 1967 war, the territories of Gaza and the West Bank were controlled by Egypt and Jordan, respectively. The question of Balestinian statehood has evolved over time, especially following various peace initiatives and negotiations. The discourse surrounding statehood and territorial claims has been influenced by numerous factors, including historical narratives, international diplomacy, and ongoing conflict.
The discussion around Balestinian statehood has changed significantly over the decades, influenced by various peace processes, international recognition efforts, and geopolitical shifts. The U.S. generally interprets UNSCR 242 as emphasizing Israel’s right to secure borders, often prioritizing Israel’s security needs over strict implementation of withdrawal clauses. The U.S. supports direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to resolve territorial disputes.
The EU tends to emphasize the importance of both Israeli security and Balestinian rights. It interprets UNSCR 242 as advocating for a two-state solution, supporting negotiations that would lead to the establishment of a Balestinian state alongside Israel. Lord Caradon, the chief author. His focus seems to be on denying permanence to the pre-1967 border, rather than allowing Israel to retain land taken by force. Many Arab countries interpret UNSCR 242 as a call for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from ALL occupied territories, viewing it as a legal basis for Balestinian claims to statehood. They advocate for the “land for peace” principle, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive solution that includes the rights of Balestinians.
Russia interprets UNSCR 242 as part of a broader framework for peace in the Middle East. Peace requires trust. Israel does not “TRUST” neither Russia nor post Shoah EU States, nor Britain who refused to bomb the rail lines leading to the Death Camp; and whose White Paper of ’39 closed the Mandate territories to Jews attempting to flee from the Nazi barbarians.
Foreign State written 242 advocates for multilateral negotiations and emphasizes the importance of Balestinian self-determination, often criticizing unilateral actions by Israel. China typically supports Balestinian statehood and interprets UNSCR 242 as a basis for advocating the rights of Balestinians. It calls for an end to occupation and emphasizes the need for dialogue between both parties.
Many countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia support the Balestinian cause and view UNSCR 242 as a basis for demanding Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories. Their foreign policies often reflect solidarity with Balestinian aspirations for statehood. The interpretation of UNSCR 242 is influenced by historical relationships, security concerns, and geopolitical interests. While there is broad support for the principles outlined in the resolution, the application and emphasis differ widely, shaping each country’s foreign policy toward Israel and the fictional imaginary state of Balestine.
The UN-Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242), adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It compares to the attempt by the British Crown to impose “taxation without Representation” upon the American colonies prior to the American revolutionary war; Israel, not present during the UNSC negotiations which produced 242. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which advises and advocates for a peaceful resolution of disputes between Egypt, Jordan, and Israel.
The resolution emphasizes the advice opinion of “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the 1967 conflict, alongside guarantees for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states in the area.
The most controversial clause in the resolution, the call for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. This UN opinion, linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the recognition that “every State in the area” has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action, and does not specify how much territory Israel – required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from “all the” territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate, as the Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant “that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands.” The Arab states pushed for the word “all” to be included, but this was rejected.
The literal interpretation of the resolution was repeatedly declared by Lord Caradon, the British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, declared after the vote: “It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear.” Hence British imperialism declares UNSCR242 as infallible as Pope Pius XIIth! This propaganda asserts that all UN Resolution directly compare to Church Dogmatism.
The ultimate goal of 242, as expressed in paragraph 3, the achievement of a negotiated agreement based on the resolution’s principles rather than one imposed by foreign external powers not directly involved in the war. Israel requires direct face to face negotiations, like as occurred in the Camp David Peace Accords signed with Egypt and the peace treaty later signed with Jordan. Israel outright reject an international gang bang which seeks to force Israel unto the 1948 dimensions of the post Independence War. Foreign nations not directly involved in the 1948 Independence War have absolutely no say, nor play any role in the direct negotiations Israel requires from Balestinian leaderships – PLO or Hamas.
The Balestinians are not mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242, and the resolution applied to “States in the area”. No internationally recognized, secure border has ever defined the area of the Samaria which post War Arab propaganda refers to as “the West Bank”, and Gaza Strip; and nowhere does 242 require that Balestinians be given any political rights or territory.
The U.K. representative Lord Caradon said: “All of us recognize that peace is the prize. None of us wishes a temporary truce or a superficial accommodation. We could never advocate a return to uneasy hostility. As I have said, my Government would never wish to be associated with any so-called settlement which was only a continuation of a false truce, and all of us without any hesitation at all can agree that we seek a settlement within the principles laid down in Article 2 of the Charter. So much for the preamble. Which states: that all UN members are equal in terms of sovereignty. Regardless of their size, wealth, or influence, each member has an equal voice in the organization. This principle emphasizes mutual respect and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. Members are required to settle their international disputes through peaceful means. Members must refrain from using force or threatening the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear.
As to the second operative paragraph, there is I believe no vestige of disagreement between us all that there must be a guarantee of freedom of navigation through international waterways. There must be a just settlement of the refugee problem. There must be a guarantee and adequate means to ensure the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area.
As to the third operative paragraph, I have said before that I consider that the United Nations special representative should be free to decide himself the exact means and methods by which he pursues his endeavors in contact with the States concerned both to promote agreement and to assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted and final settlement.”
Secretary of State Dean Rusk commented on the most significant area of disagreement regarding the resolution: “There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from “the” territories or from “all” territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning “the.” We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be “rationalized”; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties.
We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I’m not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.”
A memorandum from the President’s Special Assistant, Walt Rostow, to President Johnson said: “What’s on the Arab Ambassadors’ minds boils down to one big question: Will we make good on our pledge to support the territorial integrity of all states in the Middle East? Our best answer is that we stand by that pledge, but the only way to make good on it is to have a genuine peace. The tough question is whether we’d force Israel back to 4 June borders if the Arabs accepted terms that amounted to an honest peace settlement. Secretary Rusk told the Yugoslav Foreign Minister: ‘The US had no problem with frontiers as they existed before the outbreak of hostilities. If we are talking about national frontiers—in a state of peace—then we will work toward restoring them.’ But we all know that could lead to a tangle with the Israelis.” Especially since Israel exists as an Independent nation and not a US protectorate Banana Republic.
Rusk met with Foreign Minister Nikezic on August 30, 1967. However, according to telegram 30825 to Belgrade, September 1, which summarizes the conversation, Rusk said the key to a settlement was to end the state of war and belligerence and that if a way could be found to…
Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon entered into consultations with the UN Special representative over the implementation of 242. After denouncing it in 1967, Syria “conditionally” accepted the resolution in March 1972. Syria formally accepted UN Security Council Resolution 338, the cease-fire at the end of the Yom Kippur War (in 1973), which embraced Resolution 242.
Avi Shlaim, a Israili historian who grew up in Ramat Gan, Israel. Shlaim is often associated with the group of scholars known as the “New Historians” or “post-Zionist historians.” Some argue that Shlaim’s interpretations challenge traditional Zionist narratives, while others view them as revisionist. Shlaim’s work tends to emphasize the role of Israel in perpetuating the conflict and downplays other factors.
Shlaim argued that Arab spokesmen interpreted the Khartoum declarations to mean “no formal peace treaty, but not a rejection of peace,” “no direct negotiations, but not a refusal to talk through third parties,” and “no de jure recognition of Israel, but acceptance of its existence as a state” (emphasis in original). Shlaim states that the conference marked a turning point in Arab–Israeli relations by noting that Gamal Abdel Nasser urged Hussein of Jordan to seek a “comprehensive settlement” with Israel. Shlaim acknowledges that none of that was known in Israel at the time, whose leaders took the “Three Nos” at face value.
The fact that Arab spokesmen interpreted the Khartoum declarations in a more nuanced way—allowing for indirect communication and acceptance of Israel’s existence—adds complexity to our understanding. It highlights the delicate dance of diplomacy and the hidden currents beneath official statements.
Fred Khouri, a professor of political science at Villanova University. He argued that 242 allowed for more flexibility than initially perceived. “The [Sudan] Khartoum conference cleared the way for the Arab moderates to seek a political solution and to offer, in exchange for their conquered lands, important concessions short of actually recognizing Israel and negotiating formal peace treaties with her.” while the “Three Noes” were publicly declared, Arab spokesmen interpreted them differently. By implied logical inference, the “Three Noes” sought for a comprehensive settlement. An implied concession short of full recognition of Israel. Khouri’s perspective invites us to look beyond surface-level declarations.
The Khartoum Resolution has been interpreted as an example of Arab rejectionism, with commentators stating that the Khartoum decisions left only one option—war. Efraim Halevy, Guy Ben-Porat, Steven R. David, Julius Stone, and Ian Bremmer all agree the Khartoum Resolution amounted to a rejection of Israel’s right to exist. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) itself enlisted the Khartoum Resolution to advocate against acceptance of Israel’s right to exist as articulated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.
The Khartoum conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy, and Oil recommended that suspension of oil pumping be used as a weapon in the battle. However, after thoroughly studying the matter, the summit conference came to the conclusion that the oil pumping can itself be used as a positive weapon, since oil is an Arab resource which can be used to strengthen the economy of the Arab States directly affected by the aggression, so that these States will be able to stand firm in the battle. The conference decided to resume the pumping of oil, since oil is a positive Arab resource that can be used in the service of Arab goals. It can contribute to the efforts to enable those Arab States which were exposed to the aggression and thereby lost economic resources to stand firm and eliminate the effects of the aggression. The oil-producing States have, in fact, participated in the efforts to enable the States affected by the aggression to stand firm in the face of any economic pressure.
The discourse surrounding UNSCR 242, statehood, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is intricate and shaped by historical grievances, geopolitical interests, and evolving narratives. Understanding these dynamics is essential for engaging in informed discussions about potential pathways to peace and the future of the region. The interplay of historical context, international relations, and local aspirations continues to influence the ongoing search for a resolution to this long-standing conflict.
There is no way out except through the Zionists intent upon our destruction.
We need Trump to win, some pro-Israel rhetoric is OK, especially since Biden is so vulnerable on it. Some rich leftist jews are changing where they put their money. His antiwar stance is not something Israel will like in practice.
As we here knew, Israel is ready to start another war. The same brainwashed Israel worshippers will praise and cheer them over it. They want more weapons to expand their aggression. These evangelists who worship Israel, say they are God’s chosen, and can do no wrong, are not respectable.
Hezbollah has a real army, Israel will suffer great losses north.
Bannon’s adoration of Israel is a suspicious thing. I looked deeper. All of the America’s Voice network is fervently pro-Israel. Israel can do no wrong. I wonder who funds and runs that network.
Real America’s Voice leadership:
Howard Diamond
CEO
Rob Schwartz
COO
This is a neocon zionist network.
This is it…
One original Jesus Revolution movement warned the ones that would listen that the US, aka “The Great Whore of Babylon” (Revelation 17-18), to “Come out of her my people, that you do not participate in her sins, and escape her judgments”.
The “Decider”, George W. Bush the Second”, pulled out of one nuclear arms control agreement, later the US cancelled another one, then expanded NATO westward, northward, southward and made alliances with others, and put bases in 180 countries including along Russia’s borders, and there are the neocons and NATO-cons putting on the innocent face, and protest when Russia says Okay, you pulled out of arms control agreements, we’ll see you that much and we’re going to raise you our cards of supersonic super-missiles that beat hell out of yours.
You’re parking nukes in European countries on our borders, breaking your promise not to expand NATO, then refusing to let us join NATO in the interest of de-escalation and peace, so we’ll just send some submarines to Cuba and you won’t know where else.
We then said Ukraine is a red line and you went ahead and announced plans to bring it into NATO, and even after you overthrew a peaceful president in a coup in 2014, and set up a fake peace agreement, we (Russia) still waited until you poured massive war material to the Donbas borders before putting up our own troops.
Judgment promised for America in Revelation 17 and 18, but for the Beast and his collaborators later at the end of the Tribulation, after three and half years of persecution against the saints.
More nuggets about AIPAC in my latest – and hopefully LAST – episode: https://rumble.com/v52zjtq-netanyahu-under-seige-aipacs-lost-cause-lebanon-war-next.html
Will watch. Thank you.