NY rally marks infamous UN resolution

Thirty years - and one repeal - after then-Ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog warned the UN General Assembly that "we, the Jewish people, will not forget" the infamous UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, Herzog's son Michael joined America's UN ambassador John Bolton in slamming the resolution that denigrated Zionism as racism on the 30th anniversary of the measure's passage.

General Assembly Resolution 3379 was the world body's "single worst decision," John Bolton said Thursday at an rally sponsored by B'nai B'rith International marking both the anniversary of the infamous resolution and the United Nations' 60th anniversary.

While the "Zionism equals racism" measure was repealed in 1991, the underlying anti-Israel animus that led to its passage still remains, Bolton said. "It's incredible that it was passed to begin with," said Bolton, who was instrumental in pushing for the measure's repeal. "It's incredible that it took 16 years to repeal it."

Michael Herzog, son of then-ambassador to the UN and later president of Israel Chaim Herzog, participated in the rally. Herzog followed his father's example by reading the text of the resolution from the speakers' podium, Israel Radio reported. He then read the text of the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1131367071744&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Is that better?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

as it is kept inside Israel. When it starts expanding across Israel's proper borders then we get into serious shit. Fuck John Bolton, he's just trying to act like a tough guy so we'll all think he has more balls than us when he's really carrying the biggest pussy in the UN under that skirt of his. As for the resolution, I disagree with it totally and I think it's just harmful for all parties to harbor on the past. But then again what you expect when dealing with Cheney and Co.??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It calls for the *"withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (see semantic dispute) in exchange for an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The "territories" here refer to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. It is one of the most commonly referenced UN resolutions in Middle Eastern politics.

Context
The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, ending the state of belligerency then existing between Egypt, Jordan and Syria versus Israel. It insists upon the termination of all states of war in the area; guarantees the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all Middle Eastern nations; and calls for a "just settlement" of the question of the refugees. The resolution's most important feature is the "land for peace" formula, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors. This was an important advance at the time, considering the fact that there were no peace treaties between any Arab state and Israel until the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in 1979.

For obvious reasons, the U.N. could not force the relevant parties to make a peace agreement, nor would the rather ambiguous resolution have precedence over bilateral negotiations; however the resolution was the focus of numerous semantic disputes."Land for peace" served as the basis of the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, in which Israel retreated from the Sinai peninsula (Egypt withdrew its claims to the Gaza Strip). Jordan withdrew its claims for the West Bank shortly after the beginning of the First Intifada, and has signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, that demarcated the Jordan River as the border line. Throughout the 1990s, there were Israeli-Syrian negotiations regarding a nomalization of relations and an Israeli retreat from the Golan Heights but a peace treaty failed to materialize.

The resolution advocates a "just settlement of the refugee problem" but doesn't specifically mention the Palestinians (who were not represented in the debate). This was one of the declared reasons why the PLO rejected the resolution until 1988, when the PLO's legislative body, the PNC voted to recognize Israel within the pre-1967 lines. The UN resolution, however, did serve as a basis for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (Palestinians being represented by the PLO) that led to the Oslo Accords. The Accords' main premise, the eventual creation of Palestinian autonomy in some of the territories captured during the Six-Day War, in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel is obviously reminiscent of the "Land for Peace" principle.

Both Israel and her neighbors accept the legitimacy of 242, although the two sides interpret the resolution to mean quite different things. The two sides also disagree over the implementation of the resolution. Israel generally focuses on the latter part of the resolution first, which calls for the "termination of all states of belligerency" in the area. Thus, the refusal of the Arab states to end the state of war that exists represents a material and continuing breach of 242, making Israeli security control of the territories a continuing necessity. This continued disagreement continues to be reflected even in Israel's peaceful relations with more "moderate" neighbors such as Egypt and Jordan, and is still a major stumbling block in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians -- the former insisting upon an end to terrorism as a prerequisite to negotiations, the latter claiming Israel's continuing violations of 242 as one of the justifications for Palestinian militancy.

After territorial issues, perhaps the most widely disputed element of 242 is the call for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Israel continues to refuse to consider any large-scale resettlement of Palestinian refugees on Israeli territory, claiming that such a move would undermine the Jewish character of the state of Israel and lead to its collapse. Moreover, Israel points to the continued refusal of the Arab nations to compensate Israeli Jews of Arab origin, many of whom were driven out of their home countries after facing the expropriation of virtually all of their property. Israel's official stand at present is that refugees will be resettled either where they currently live, or in a newly constituted Palestinian state at such a time when it is established. Recent evidence suggests that a moderate Palestinian leadership would accept a "symbolic right of return" to Israel in the framework of an overall peace agreement, along with an acknowledgement from Israel of its responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem. However, numerous Palestinian groups with substantial political power have stated their opposition to any agreement that does not allow for a full return of Palestinian refugees to their places of origin within the former Palestine Mandate, regardless of whether those places are currently in Israel proper. This argument reflects an even older conflict over the meaning of the non binding UN Resolution 194, the first UN resolution to deal with the Palestinian refugees. The refugee issue continues to be one of the most intractable facets of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and continues to hamstring efforts on both sides to implement Resolution 242.

SNIP