EXCERPT/ obama vs President Johnson refused to have Israel branded as the aggressor.
Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 ought to have demanded an unconditional Israeli withdrawal and indicated that Israel would be isolated and have sanctions imposed on it if it refused to comply.
http://www.redressonline.com/2014/12/for-the-palestinians-un-means-useless-nations/
This was despite the fact that he was privately furious with the Israelis. He had given them the green light to attack only Egypt,
but their attack on Syria to take the Golan Heights for keeping
provoked the Soviet Union to the brink of military confrontation with the US.
Johnson was also fully aware that when Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan gave the order for his forces to attack the USS Liberty his intention was to sink the American spy ship and send all on board to a watery grave
As it happened, on 8 June the Israeli attack on the Liberty with bombs, napalm, torpedoes and machine gun fire killed 34 members of the vessel’s crew and wounded 171, 75 of them seriously.
The Liberty was attacked to prevent it sending an early warning to the
Johnson administration that elements of the
Israeli army’s ground forces in Sinai were being turned around to reinforce an attack on Jordan and Syria.
The full story is told in The Liberty Affair – “Pure Murder” on a “Great Day“, Chapter 2 of Volume Three of my book.
Who described the attack on the Liberty as “pure murder”? Israel’s chief of staff at the time, Yitzhak Rabin.
The “great day” comment was made by Dayan in a note to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol.)
Though it did pay lip service to
“the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”,
the final text of Resolution 242 (less than 300 words in all) gave the Israelis the scope to interpret it as they wished.
It did so by stating that the establishment of a just and lasting peace should include the application of two principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty,
territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
This wording enabled Zionism to assert that withdrawal was conditional on the Arab states recognising and legitimising Israel.
--------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT READ
In addition, Resolution 242 gave Israel the freedom to determine the extent of any withdrawals it might make.
This freedom was secured by immense pressure from Israel and the Zionist lobby in all its manifestations, which caused those responsible for the final wording of the resolution to drop the definite article “the” in (i) above.
The wording of the draft text was (my emphasis added)
“Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
The meaning of that draft text was clear. Israel had to withdraw from all the Arab territory it grabbed in the Six Days War.
But when Israel’s leaders and the Zionist lobby said that was unacceptable, those responsible for the final version of 242 replied in effect: “Okay. We’ll do it your way.”
So the question without an answer in the final text of 242 was: which Israel were the Arab states required to recognise?
An Israel withdrawn to its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war or a Greater Israel – an Israel in permanent occupation of at least some Arab territory grabbed in that war?
Incredible though it may seem today, Resolution 242 did not mention the Palestinians by name. It affirmed only the necessity for “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.”
Mentioning the Palestinians by name was unacceptable to Israel’s leaders and the Zionist lobby because it would have implied that they, the occupied and oppressed Palestinians, were a people with rights – rights far greater than what might be called the begging bowl rights normally associated in the public mind with refugees.
---------------------------------------------------------
Mentioning the Palestinians by name was unacceptable to Israel’s leaders and the Zionist lobby because it would have implied that they, the occupied and oppressed Palestinians, were a people with rights – rights far greater than what might be called the begging bowl rights normally associated in the public mind with refugees.
---------------------------------------------------------
Put another way, in November 1967 the major Western powers were hoping that re-emerging Palestinian nationalism could be snuffed out by a combination of Arab-and-Israeli military action
(it was the security forces of Egypt,
Jordan and Lebanon which made the first attempt to liquidate the authentic Palestine liberation movement led by Arafat) and compensation for refugees as necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------
Those responsible for framing Resolution 242 were very much aware that Israel’s hawks were going to proceed with their colonial venture come what may –
in determined defiance of international law and no matter what the organised international community said or wanted.
So some, if not all, of those responsible for framing 242 were resigned to the fact that,
because of the history of the Jews
(persecution on and off down the centuries)
and Zionism’s use of the Nazi holocaust as a brainwashing tool, Israel was not and never could be a normal state.
As a consequence, there was no point in the Security Council seeking to oblige it to behave like a normal state –
i.e. in accordance with international law and its obligations as a member of the UN.
Like it or not,
and whatever it might mean for the fate of mankind,
the world was going to have to live with the fact that there are two sets of rules for the behaviour of nations –
one rule for Israel and one for all other nations.
In that light Resolution 242 was confirmation that the Security Council had a double standard built into it, and because the political will to confront Zionism did not exist, there was nothing anybody could do to change that reality.
-------------------------------------------------------
At the time of writing an effort by the Palestine Authority is underway to get a new Security Council resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation within two or three years.
But even if such a resolution was introduced and passed
(not vetoed by President Obama)
it would be meaningless unless it contained a commitment to Security Council enforcement action if Israel refused to comply.
What are the chances in the foreseeable future of a new Security Council resolution containing such a commitment?
In my view there is not a snowball’s chance in hell.
What President Truman feared could happen did happen. On dealing with the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel the Security Council was put out of business by Zionism.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
