Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (241252)	9/8/2007 4:10:48 AM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (1) of 281500

<<Yes, according to the author of Resolution 242, you are. There was a big tussle at the UN between the USSR and the US over the wording of the resolution, with the USSR wanting to write in a complete withdrawal, and the US wanting to leave it open to negotiation. The final wording said "withdrawal from territories" not "withdrawal from the territories" and also mentioned Israel's right to secure boundaries to be settled by negotiations. That was the compromise.>> Thanks for the clarification but my God Nadine....talk about grasping at straws. The whole premise for Israel's not withdrawing to the pre '67 borders wrt 242 is because it doesn't include "the" before territories in the wording?!? Wow...... <<So you agree that if Israel simply withdraws from the West Bank, the same thing will happen there as happened in Gaza? It sounds like you do.>> A total withdrawal without a negotiated framework with outside financial backing and monitoring would exactly end up like Gaza today. By your own admission its a gangland society with extremely poor people being subjugated to radicalism and intolerance. Without outside guidance it would be a disaster. Try looking at the bigger picture Nadine.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next