I'm getting grumpy.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
I see no arrogance nor insult directed your way.

No post is necessarily irrelevant. As I said, I do not agree with Russotto's rationale; however, I understand how it may have been deduced. It's not like it was some out-of-nowhere thought. After all, we still have a conquest from the Spanish-American war...Puerto Rico.

I've read 242 several times, and if someone is not completely aware of just whose land was originally whose, it is a bit confusing. Truth be told, you would really have to know about the original partition plan from the late 40s to really understand 242. It is NOT overly specific.

As intelligent as most people here are, I would wager that several of them have no clue as to what Resolution 242 is. I haven't heard it brought up recently here on the Cellar (or in the news).

Previously, search engines would not locate UN 242. How did you find it?

On the UN's website. It's actually takes a bit of digging. I tried to do a search on their engine, but it only gives articles that reference 242. On one of them, I saw the year that 242 was issued (1967). So, I went into the Security Council resolutions section, and looked up the ones from 1967. You can also access it via Google, by typing in "Resolution 242."

Ironically, I just did that, and I came across this interpretation from the Jewish Virtual Library. From this interpretation, it would seem that Israel is playing dumb. A good example of how 242 can be misread, or at least interpreted in a different manner than we might expect.

[Griff]

Jag,

I don't think you'd be too into Smith, he wears his ideology on his sleeve. In Probabilty Broach he does quite a bit along the lines of an armed society being a polite society. Alternate universe same world divergent history, you know the drill. If you want a recommendo I'd try Ken MacLeod -Star Fraction etc... He's an ex-Trotyskyite, anarcho-capitalist with advanced degrees in biology and maybe computer science? Really intriguing writer. Throw in a little Vernor Vinge for a full blown libertarian/anarcho-capitalist festival.

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
I've read 242 several times, and if someone is not completely aware of just whose land was originally whose, it is a bit confusing. Truth be told, you would really have to know about the original partition plan from the late 40s to really understand 242. It is NOT overly specific.

I don't believe the 1940 boundary declarations have any relevance anymore to a world that is mindset on pre-1967 boundaries. Interesting is that Jewish site interpretation which proves facts using conditions long since invalidated. Forget the truth when it is convenient?

For example, to return Siani, Egypt had to sign on to peace. But having settled the aggression problem, then Siani was returned just as UN 242 insisted.

Jordan also signed peace with Israel. The West Bank no longer is a buffer to aggressive nations. But the West Bank remains occupied? Even Arafat has agreed with the conditions of UN 242 (another point the site contradicts by omission). Therefore an idea that the West Bank is required for Israeli security is moot. And yet that web site still makes a long since obsoleted claim in direct contradiction to UN 242 - sometimes by using facts no longer in existance. The web site reads more like a defense lawyer who says, "My client had the victims blood all over him, the knife in his hand. But he did not do it. He just happened to bump into the murder".

It strikes odd that UN 242, so fundamental to all peace settlements in the Middle East, is so little known. Why does that make me so suspicious? Especially since Likud all but openly does everything it can to destroy UN 242 and the Oslo Accords.

Benchmark case. The height of 1960s VietNam. Confused by contradictory facts, I sought every article on the 1955 Geneva Convention. Nam was defined by that convention. I went through every issue of every news magazine from current back to the week before the 1955 Geneva Convention. I could find only scant references to 1955 Geneva in Time, Newsweek, US News, and other publications. The only article in every publication was only on the week the treaty was approved (which is acutally dated the week before by Time, Newsweek, etc). American news magazines provided no essential points of that Geneva Conventions. IOW no key sentences were even quoted. Where were the facts on 1955 Geneva? Why did the US public not know anything about Geneva? Welcome to an American nightmare called VietNam.

A shortage of public knowledge on UN 242 is suspiciously missing as well. Notice how difficult it is to find any search engine references to UN 242.

BTW, it took the Pentagon Papers to get into the American public what 1955 Geneva was all about. Facts were that well suppressed. Nixon even sued to keep basic historical facts from the public. Why then is UN Resolution 242 also not known to the public? Those similarities in information dissemination - 1955 Geneva and UN 242 - reek with suspicion. This did not bother me until Adam Zion even refused to repost anything with UN 242 when responding to my posts. That set off alarm bells. I remeber the Nixon's lies about VietNam and his open attempt to keep history hidden from America. Why is UN 242 also so feared?

We know that Henry Luce of Time Magazine routinely kept such information he did not like from the public whenever he could. He did not like 1955 Geneva nor the fact that Chung Ki Chek (? of pre-1949 China) was so corrupt. His direct censorship of the news is documented in the book "Powers That Be". But why is it so difficult to find references to UN Resolution 242? There's one for the conspiracy buffs.

[jaguar]

you stearotype me griff =P
ill try both