Judenrein
While this administration has an attack of the vapors every time a Jew builds a potting shed anywhere near Jerusalem, it might be worth recalling exactly what the UN said at the time the Israelis and the combined armies of the Arab nations ceased hostilities.
NB: I don’t give a [bleep] what the UN said—then, now, or ever—but since so many other people seem to put so much stock in what a pack of anti-Semitic tyrants has to say, we might as well see what the pack of anti-Semitic tyrants actually said:
Israel held that the withdrawal phrase in the Resolution was not meant to refer to a total withdrawal. Following are statements including the interpretations of various delegations to Resolution 242:
…
Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:
“… the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands.
…
It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary… “
Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:
“As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word ‘all’ before the word ‘territories’ is deliberate.”
Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:
“I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. “I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied’, and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”
…
Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:
“To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries … would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description… such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is…”
President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 1968:
“We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbours involved.”
There’s reams more, none of it tyrannical or anti-Semitic, all documented, all genuine.
The demand that Israel return all land the stupid, [bleeping] Arabs lost after trying to ambush Israel is based on fiction.
FIC-TION.
Which makes the obsession by the Obama administration on ghettoizing the Jews either pure ignorance or pure something else—and we’d better pray for ignorance.