Skip to main content

View Diary: Without Arafat, Whither Palestine? (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Like I said earlier... (none)
    the wording of UNSCR 242 is open to different interpretations. The legislative history you quoted gives the opinions of the security council representatives of USA and Britain. I am sure the security council representatives of the other countries would have their own version of it. In my opinion, it was disingenuous and perhaps dishonest of you to have stated it as undisputed fact.

    As far as there not being any likelihood of "any power having both the inclination and the ability to enforce your interpretation on Israel", you are right. As things stand right now, it is unlikely. But I would rather be on the side of what is just and right than on the side of what is possible in the near-term.

    •  Re: Reading UNSCR 242 (none)
      You may want there to be other interpretations of UNSCR 242, but you haven't provided any factual or analytic basis for challenging the evidence and analysis presented.  For sure, simply calling me "disingenuous and perhaps dishonoest" does nothing either to advance the cause of reasoned discourse or to suggest that you have something more than personal preference to support your opinion.

      Even so, I'm curious as to the details of a resolution to the conflict that you would regard as "just and right."

      •  In my opinion... (none)
        I have provided the analytic basis for my interpretation of UNSCR 242. The problem is you do not accept it just as I do not accept your analytic basis. Which just leads me back to my original point. The meaning of UNSCR 242 is disputed and should not be presented as fact.

        As far as what I consider just and right, here it is .

        1. If Israel wants to keep a part of the West Bank, it must offer EQUAL land in compensation. What's more, it should be land that the Palestinians consider to be comparable in quality to the land they are being asked to give up. If the two parties cannot come to agreement on such a land swap, the 1967 borders should made permanent. They may not be perfect borders but if they worked from 1949 to 1967, they are certainly not unworkable.

        2. A recognition of the right of return for the refugees, a right that the Palestinians should voluntarily give up in the interest of peace. Refugees must be compensated for their losses and suffering. This would apply to any Jewish refugees from Arab countries as well.

        3. All the rights of statehood to Palestine including the right to a military and complete sovereignity over land, sea and air.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site