Jimmy Carter, Lord Caradon, the Palestine Mandate, and Resolution 242 (Part II)

Jimmy Carter treats a sentence from the non-binding preamble to Resolution 242 as if it were a binding part of the Resolution itself. He thinks that the phrase about the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” applies to Israel, when examination of the Mandate for Palestine reveals that it is Jordan, not Israel, that is claiming territory in the “West Bank” based on its acquisition by war (in 1949). Carter then asserts that the other key words of Resolution 242 are these: “the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” He wants you to think that this means that Israel is required to withdraw from “all the territories” that it won in the 1967 war. And indeed, the Arab diplomats at the U.N. sought, repeatedly, to have the words “the” or “all the” inserted before “territories.” But they failed.

The chief drafter of Resolution 242 was Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot), the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970. At the time of the Resolution’s discussion and subsequent unanimous passage, and on many occasions since, Lord Caradon always insisted that the phrase “from the territories” quite deliberately did not mean “all the territories,” but merely some of the territories:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if  we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

On another occasion, to an interviewer from the Journal of Palestine Studies (Spring-Summer 1976), he again insisted on the deliberateness of the wording. He was asked:

The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

Nota bene: “from territories occupied” is not the same thing as “from occupied territories” – the first is neutral, the second a loaded description. Lord Caradon answered:

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

“Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong.”

Source: for MORE

Jimmy Carter, Lord Caradon, the Palestine Mandate, and U.N. Resolution 242 (Part I)

That is the piece by Jimmy Carter that appeared in the New York Times on November 28. It disturbs for many reasons: the indifference to Israel’s security needs, the disregard for the relevant history, the inattention to Israel’s legal, moral, and historic claims, especially those based on the Mandate for Palestine and the “secure and defensible borders” provision of U.N. Resolution 242, and the ignorance Carter shows about Islam, and of what explains the unappeasable Muslim hostility to the Jewish state, no matter how tiny that state may become.

Let’s start with Carter’s attempt to describe what U.N. Resolution 242 says. He claims that the key words of that resolution were “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every state in the area can live in security,” and the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

These are not the key words of Resolution 242. In fact, the first phrase he quotes, about the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every state in the area can live in security” is not even to be found in the Resolution proper, but appears in the non-binding preamble to it, a statement of principle only. And what’s more, Carter wants you to think that the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” refers to Israel, and its winning, by force of arms in the Six-Day War, of the Sinai, Gaza, and the territory we have fallen into the habit of calling the “West Bank,” the name given to it after 1949 by the Jordanian Arabs, who were determined to efface, as too obviously Jewish, the place-names Judea and Samaria, though they had been in use in the Western world for 2000 years.

But it is Jordan, and not Israel, to which that phrase “inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” properly applies. It is Jordan that had no legal claim, but only the claim of a military occupier, since hostilities ended in 1949, to the “West Bank.” But Israel’s claim to the same territory (the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, if we want to respect and resurrect the most venerable of toponyms) is based on the Mandate for Palestine; that legal and historic claim survived the 1948 war and the Jordanian occupation that lasted from 1948 right up to the war of June 1967. Though Israel’s claim remained unchanged, after the Six-Day War one thing did change: that claim could at last be satisfied. In other words, while the Six-Day War created the conditions that allowed Israel to now enforce its legal claim under the Mandate for Palestine, it is that Mandate, and not the 1967 military victory, that is the original basis of Israel’s claim as of right and not of sufferance. And that claim is further buttressed by the requirement, in Resolution 242, for establishing “secure and defensible borders.”

Source: for MORE

Why Is the U.S. Embracing Iran – AGAIN?

Senior leaders from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are in Washington, meeting with top U.S. diplomatic and defense officials, and are deeply concerned America has significantly worsened the situation in the Middle East by creating a “strategic partnership” with Iran.

Thirty-seven years ago, U.S. President Jimmy Carter paved the way for Iran’s Islamic theocratic dictatorship to come to power, according to newly declassified secret documents, reports the BBC Persian News Service. The documents show that Carter pledged to “hold back” the Iranian military from attempting a coup, which would have prevented the return of the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini from France.

The documents also reveal that the Carter administration believed — erroneously — that bringing Ayatollah Khomeini into power in Iran, and in the process abandoning the Shah, would preserve American interests, keep the Soviets out of the region, protect U.S. allies, and ensure the flow of oil to the world’s industrial nations.

In one of his many messages to President Carter, Khomeini played into that belief. “You will see we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans,” Khomeini said, and promised that Iran would be a “tolerant democracy.”


Betrayal and Back-Stabbing: How Obama and Carter Empowered the Islamic Republic

As Barack Obama’s tenure comes to a close, political analysts are already drawing comparisons between the current administration and that of Jimmy Carter’s. Both proved to be exceedingly inept at dealing with emerging foreign crises, both were harshly and unfairly critical of Israel and both betrayed loyal allies, utilizing all methods available to undermine friends while propping up hostile foes. The personification of this doctrine is best illustrated by that manner in which both administrations empowered and emboldened the mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Islamic fundamentalist takeover of Iran in 1979 was a disastrous occurrence that was avoidable but made possible by the Carter administration. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, also known as the Shah of Iran, was a powerful and reliable U.S. ally in a volatile region plagued by the forces of extremism. His government served as a bulwark against Communist expansion and Islamic fundamentalism. He modernized Iran, improved infrastructure, increased living standards and wages, improved literacy, lowered infant mortality and tellingly, in a region where misogyny was pervasive, provided equal rights for women.

Nonetheless, the Shah’s human rights record proved to be inadequate for the Carter administration, which began a concerted campaign to undermine his government. Recently declassified government records reveal the shocking extent which Carter and his lackeys betrayed a long-time U.S. ally. But not only did Carter help depose the Shah, he facilitated the ascendancy of an Islamic fundamentalist regime that would give the United States headaches for the next 35 years and beyond.

Toward the latter part of 1978 and early 1979, Iran was wracked by violence and chaos. Demonstrations and clashes with the security forces were a daily occurrence and labor strikes ground business to a halt. But those seeking to overthrow the regime were not necessarily fundamentalist Islamists. Many were secular oriented and had no desire to see the monarchy replaced by an even more tyrannical theocracy.

But Carter, who was small-minded, naïve and lacked any foresight (attributes found in Obama), decided to hedge his bets with Ayatollah Khomeini. At the time Khomeini was living in luxurious exile in France. The shrewd fanatic employed the well-known Islamic practice of taqiyya to fool Carter into believing that he was interested in maintaining good relations with the U.S., that the flow of oil would be uninterrupted and that Iran’s Jews had nothing to fear. Carter fell hook, line and sinker for the charade and employed various behind- the-scenes schemes to hasten the Shah’s downfall utilizing career hacks to facilitate the betrayal.


Barack Obama’s plan to bankrupt the West

n April 3rd President Obama said he wants lending companies to lower their criteria for home loans to those with lower and poor credit ratings. The US Department of the Treasury is only happy to oblige.

According to this Treasury briefing, published in January 2013, it will “look for ways to help consumers repair their credit and regain their footing in the housing market and support neighborhood stabilization.” Moreover, there is no need to worry about those previous failures to pay since “the financial crisis caused them to miss an auto or credit card payment.” It seems with this policy they may do so again.

Could we see an instant replay of the credit crunch that came about in 2008?

The devastating recession that began back then was not necessarily down to greedy bankers, but Democrat Party meddling going back to President Jimmy Carter: the manipulation of market forces leading to reckless lending to people who did not have a prayer of ever repaying their loans.

The ‘greedy bankers’, meanwhile, just offered different insurance policy derivatives to cover bad debts and losses. They were the politicians’ useful scapegoat to deflect blame from their outrageous Ponzi scheme-cum-social engineering.

The story begins with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed in 1977 by President Carter.


Warning Signs: America Commits Suicide

I had hoped that the majority of voters would elect Mitt Romney, but instead of a man of character they chose charisma.

They ignored four years of failure and deception. In advertising, they say “Sell the sizzle, not the steak.” Romney, sadly, lacked sizzle.

Obama’s victory was one of a long line of Progressives from Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Jimmy Carter. It was not new, but it will likely do more damage on top of what his predecessors have done.

It turned out that there were not enough voters from the faith-based communities. You know—the kind of people Obama said “cling to their religion and guns.” There were not enough from a range of population subsets to make a difference.