Three points of dissent, including whether Israel will be able to control the broadcast and where the cameras will be situated, could lead to new tensions over flashpoint site.04:55 07.02.16 | 0 comments
D: "Israel gets its secure borders by having militarily defensible lines." It gets secure borders by concluding a peace agreement. Insisting that Israel can DEMAND that seizure of land be legitimized because the neighbors MUST recognize the "new" border does not bring peace, Duncan - and I tire of pointing out to you that it is PEACE that is the aim of Res 242, not territorial expansion. D: "Note that the resolution does not use the word `the` or calls on Israel to withdraw to the `67 boundaries." No, to do *that* would DEPRIVE Israel of the right to seek a diplomatic opening for a land-swap, and so was rejected. D: "this was rejected in favour of giving israel some territorial gains due to arab agression." Your claim is flatly rejected by "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" Israel could seek to swap like-for-like (242 was crafted to allow her to TRY) but if that failed then the only other option was spelt out to her; WITHDRAW.