", under international law, and UN resolution 242, Israel was to negotiate a peaceful return of "territories". NOTE!! It does NOT say ALL territories"
The wording "withdrawal from territories conquered.." was taken from "withdrawal from the territories conquered". The US, who proposed the language, insisted that it meant less territories. The Palestine Liberation adamantly disagreed with this interpretation. This resolution was presented and adopted in one day.
I think that citing UN resolutions is a disingenuous argument. The US doesn't play fair.
Israel has a right to survive; but the US has always backed Israel for reasons of it's own. The Palestinians on the other hand are disenfranchised.
Disenfranchised is not equivalent to having no rights to the land. They have a historical right. They are unwanted elsewhere (remember Lebanon).
How incongruous to want to shuffle the Palestinians from the land where their ancestors lived and raise your voice when the santa cruz homeless are refused a right to sleep.
A Palestinian Disapora is not necessary for Israel's survival. Israel is a nuclear power, it's major deterrent to attack (that and the support of the US).
Re: Jamil Dakwar of Human Rights Watch speaks about the recent decision in the International Court of Justice regarding the Wall that Israel is constructing in the West Bank
Date Edited: 17 Jul 2004 03:11:13 PM
New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz