SDHD: "We all know that 242 does no such thing." Yes it does. 242: "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:" 242: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" The logic: IF East Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 (it was) AND Israel won't withdraw from it (it won't) THEN THERE CAN BE NO PEACE (there isn't). SDHD: "It does not call for a full withdrawal." It also doesn't call for a "full peace", or didn't you notice that? Do you want to argue that the absence of the phrase "full peace" means that Res 242 is saying that Israel is entitled to a "just and lasting ersatz peace inside Eretz Yisrael"? Your "logic" would appear to demand exactly that....
Report: Iran's Culture Ministry refuses to allow Barenboim to perform in Tehran (DPA)
from the article: IDF official: Neither Israel nor PA wants violence