"KlipKlap: But the essence of UNSC 242 is clear - if one looks for the big picture and not the word weaseling. Publication of interviews with the participatory delegates from Brazil and India published on the unfortunately defunct Brandish site showed clearly that the intention of the voting members was that Israel withdraw to the 1949 border and that negotiations for a permanently acceptable border be initiated. Brazil and India? LOL You must have found some info contary to the conventional "242 means 1967 borders" BS on the net if you have to resort to those minor Players. But I will get to the Brazilian one later. THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242 "The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242], tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change...Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.' When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution [calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines] but it was Not a viable alternative to the UK text...Members [of the UN Security Council] voted and adopted the [UK drafted] resolution unanimously..." (UN Security Council Resolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28. Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242: "...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is Lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, Failed to command the requisite support..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973). Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... - Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was NOT to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' [1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17). The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft, which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council. (American Society of International Law, 1970). UNSC RESOLUTION AND ISRAEL'S DEFENSIBLE BORDERS: A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of 'secure boundaries' for Israel. They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler. The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.' (Prof. Ezra Zohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000). http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/242a.html
Here is the exact text of UNSC resolution 242 (22nd November 1967)regarding the Israeli withdrawal: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" How should this be interpreted in practical terms? 1) The "recent conflict" is clearly the 6 Day War - right Abu? So the resolution demands that Israel withdraw to the borders as they existed before the 6 Day War - or is this incorrect? If incorrect, in what way - the wording seems clear to me. 2) Given the above, I would appreciate it if you could tell me how the pre-6 Day War boundary differs from that established in the 1949 armistice - the Green Line. Perhaps my information is too rudimentary, but I thought these were equivalent. If so, I dont understand the point of your post - what are you trying to refute in terms that are significant?
FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON: Israel should not have to withdraw its forces to the pre-June 5 armistice lines. "This is not a prescription for peace, but for a renewal of hostilities." (Address, June 19, 1967). "It is clear however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders..." (Address, Sept. 10, 196. FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: "In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again." (Address to the Nation, September 1, 1982). FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE SCHULTZ: "Israel will never negotiate from, or return to, the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders." (Address to the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, Sept. 16, 198. WHAT IS THE STANCE OF SYRIA AND OTHER ARAB STATES ON 242? Syria Rejected UNSC Resolution 242 because it did not require Israel to withdraw to the 1949/1967 cease fire Lines. Syria was joined by the other Arab States, claiming that the 1949/1967 Lines were not final borders. (abu afak note ... later/1973 accepting the incorrect 'French Translation'/Mistranslation that because of a quirk of language included the article 'the' that was specifically rejected in the Original negotiations and Final Draft The Palestinians Also REJECTED Resolution 242 until 1988 and then tried the same revisionist trick as the Syrians.. as all the Arabs and most others now Try.) THE ESSENCE OF UNSC RESOLUTION 242: ***242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines; ***242 mandates negotiation - give and take, rather than give and give; ***242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation; ***242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of 'secure and recognized borders', which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized. ex from: http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242a.html // Also Lord Caradon, an [chief] author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970): "We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever." MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978 Last quote, Peace encylopedia
"..Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973: Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?" Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. 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 reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969: Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?" Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read Concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."...." 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." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70) USA Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"): "That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties." Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law/Public Affairs, Yale University.. 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs: a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and Not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' Failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, Not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." USSR - Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242: " ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67) +More at link below http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242b.html How True Vasily. How true. Klippy please note underlined portions above as they explain how 242 should be read- and the whole rest of the Direct quotes of all the main authors explains the balance of the Intent.
No, Abu, they don't explain to me how to read. Sorry mate - but I can read English and UN protocol states that "the meaning of UN resolutions shall be that which the members voted on", meaning not what some uninvolved individuals say was the understanding by the voting members. So as to be absolutely clear on what those member states of the Security Coincil voted on at the time, here is the text of UN SC Resolution 242 IN FULL. Now let us see what sense the reasonable man might make of what those members intended. As opposed to placing the quotes of non-voting individuals in bold, I chose to be closer to the real truth by placing wording of the actual text that those members voted on, in bold. ___________________________________________________ The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war (*1) and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict (*2); 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 recognized boundaries (*3) free from threats or acts of force; Affirms further the necessity For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible. ____________________________________________________________ (*1) So first off, the SC clearly stated that acquisition of territory by war is not admissable. so: 1) Bang goes Zionist myth number 7 which states that the occupied territories belong to it (Israel) as Spoils of War. 2) The SC clearly recognised that Israel had acquired territory during the 6 Day War. In other words it was then, and even more so now, occupying land that did not belong to it. QED it had strayed beyond its boundaries - there is no debate about this in terms of the subject of your thread. (*2) Here is where it refers to Israels withdrawal Abu - here. It is quite clear. "... withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Now before you mention the old tired lack of the word "the" (as in the territories), just read it again. Does it say Israel should withdraw from some territories? Does it say Israel should withdraw from no territories? No!! - it says Israel should withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and when that is read in conjuction with (*1), a reasonable person can have precious little doubt regarding what the SC member states voted on Get back to where you were before the conflict, namely the 1949 armistice line (the Green line). For those who are interested, Wikipedia has collected a range of opinions on this matter. Although the Statements by the Security Council Representatives are clearly the most important reference (by virtue of UN protocol and procedures) as to what the members actually voted for, I personally enjoy John McHugo's view of what "Israel shall withdraw from (the) territories ccupied" means in terms of the missing "the" - he compared it to: "Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park." In spite of the lack of definite articles (the), according to McHugo, it is clear that such an instruction cannot legitimately be taken to imply that some dogs need not be kept on the lead or that the rule applies only near some ponds. Further, McHugo points out a potential consequence of the logic employed by advocates of a "some" reading. Paragraph 2 (a) of the Resolution, which guarantees "freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area", may allow Arab states to interfere with navigation through some international waterways of their choosing. 3) And finally it is here at (*3) that the "secure and recognised boundaries" that you like to refer to, is mentioned. You will note that it is not related to the instruction to Israel to withdraw. Naughty Abu - that was dishonest debate!!
III. THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY The Palestinian people has the inherent right to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine. The Committee considers that the evacuation of the territories occupied by force and in violation of the principles of the Charter and relevant resolutions of the United Nations is a conditio sine qua non for the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights in Palestine. The Committee considers, furthermore, that upon the return of the Palestinians to their homes and property and with the establishment of an independent Palestinian entity, the Palestinian people will be able to exercise its rights to self-determination and to decide its form of government without external interference. The Committee also feels that the United Nations has an historical duty and responsibility to render all assistance necessary to promote the economic development and prosperity of the Palestinian entity. To these ends, the Committee recommends that: (a) A timetable should be established by the Security Council for the complete withdrawal by Israeli occupation forces from those areas occupied in 1967; such withdrawal should be completed no later than 1 June 1977; (b) The Security Council may need to provide temporary peace-keeping forces in order to facilitate the process of withdrawal; (c) Israel should be requested by the Security Council to desist from the establishment of new settlements and to withdraw during this period from settlements established since 1967 in the occupied territories. Arab property and all essential services in these areas should be maintained intact; (d) Israel should also be requested to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12;August;1949, and to declare, pending its speedy withdrawal from these territories, its recognition of the applicability of that Convention; (e) The evacuated territories, with all property and services intact, should be taken over by the United Nations, which with the co-operation of the League of Arab States, will subsequently hand over these evacuated areas to the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people; (f) The United Nations should, if necessary, assist in establishing communications between Gaza and the West Bank; (g) As soon as the independent Palestinian entity has been established, the United Nations, in co-operation with the States directly involved and the Palestinian entity, should, taking into account General Assembly resolution 3375 (XXX), make further arrangements for the full implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, the resolution of outstanding problems and the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region, in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions; (h) The United Nations should provide the economic and technical assistance necessary for the consolidation of the Palestinian entity. http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument Resolution ES-7/2 was adopted by 112 votes in favour to 7 against, with 24 abstentions. In it, the General Assembly recalled and reaffirmed its resolutions 3236 and 3237 (XXIX) and all other relevant United Nations resolutions pertinent to the question of Palestine. It reaffirmed that a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East could not be established without the withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and without the achievement of a just solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine. It reaffirmed also the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine including the right to return, the right to self-determination and the right to establish its own independent sovereign State. The General Assembly reaffirmed the right of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate on an equal footing in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East within the framework of the United Nations. It reaffirmed the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, called upon Israel to withdraw from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and urged that such withdrawal should start before 15 November 1980. It also demanded that Israel comply with all United Nations resolutions relevant to the historic character of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It expressed its opposition to all policies and plans aimed at the resettlement of the Palestinians outside of their homeland. The General Assembly requested and authorized the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures towards the implementation of the recommendations contained in paragraphs 59 to 72 of the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People as a basis for the solution of the question of Palestine. It also requested the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session on the implementation of the present resolution. It also requested the Security Council, in the event of non-compliance by Israel, to convene in order to consider the situation and the adoption of effective measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. It decided to adjourn temporarily and to authorize the President of the latest regular session of the General Assembly to resume its meetings upon request from Member States. http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/c426c561856178058025647400468f80?OpenDocument It's so much easier to go dirrectly to the UN records. Note here it says all terretories.
"What did the members Vote on"? Well after many, many drafts of the resolution.. some by Arabs and USSR trying to Insert "all" or "the" the members indeed knew they were voting for Incomplete withdrawal to NEW "secure and Recognized" Boundaries, Recognizing the Old ones were NOT. IOW, the First 'Land for Peace' Resolution. again and linked above: Couldn't be any clearer than that. The members indeed knew quite well That is why in fact, Israel accepted IMMEDIATELY (speech by Eban) and Syria and the Palestinians REJECTED it. Hmmm. Kilppy.. kinda hard to explain that result ANY other way.. aint it? Add the above Fact/Result to the Statements of the Authors.. and you have unmistakeably that the parties knew what they were voting on. NOT the old borders and NOT complete withdrawal (NO 'all' nor even 'the') but to New more "secure and Recognized ones".. more defendable ones for Israel as laid out in my first. Next set of 'anti-zionists' (cough) please step up! (Funny thing about this conflict, even documented facts don't change opinion, just rationale. That's how we know what 'antizionism' really is) http://gameover.org/ .
It's just a pity that international courts don't agree with you. http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/c426c561856178058025647400468f80?OpenDocument You did notice that bit Abu that say all and the. It goes on a bit more:- [ As I say the International courts just do not agree with you.
Abu, I have maintained all along that UNSC 242 requires that Israel withdraw from territories gained in the Six Day War. I have maintained that the lead-in emphasis of the exact text of the resolution makes this crystal clear, namely "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ....." How can there be any doubt that this resolution is sanctioning Israel because it pretended to hold onto such territory (and still does). I am stunned that you offer opinions of various persons who did not vote on the Security council as evidence that my thesis is incorrect, while at the same time presenting the following as evidence for your position. Abu - please read these words from your own reference carefully - please. Can you please explain to me what on earth is going on and why you insist that the resolution does not sanction Israel for acquiring territories by war, and as a DIRECT corollary, requiring Israel to retreat to the pre-1967 situation?
Didn't vote? Are you joining Ashley in the Preposterous/What-planet department? I gave statements by the UN ambassadors of the UK, USA, and USSR, all of whom DID Vote. as well as the statements of their Staffs/Foreign offices/delegates who did much of the Formulation. And these delegations were of course the major players in the Res and World at the time. The UK having administered the Mandate previously. And one cannot reiterate enough for you I guess their intent and the Outcome which Everyone understood, and why Israel accepted immediately and the Syrians and Palestinians Rejected the Res. NO ANSWER from Klipklap on that, of course. Because the answer would kill the last .1% his already 99.9% lost position. There is some hope for you kk - You might convince Ashley with your "word -weaseling" even though the Intent of the Res has now been made Vividly clear..... by me.
Abu, I am now thoroughly confused. YOU have indicated your agreement with the following on a number of occasions now: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, NOT from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... " OK, so this bit is 100% clear to me. So then which are these "the" or "all" or "some" territories that are in addition to those gained in the course of the 6 Day War, from which Israel is not required to withdraw and which needed such carefully drafting of missing definite articles to enable Israel to remain in control of them? What land is this that was not define in the 1949 armistice? It seems that I am absolutely clueless as to what land you are talking about. My apologies. Please help. Your assistance aid in avoiding further mismatched debate.
Abu wrote: Statements by Security Council representatives Supporters of an "all territories" reading point out that the intentions and opinions of draftsmen are not normally considered relevant to the interpretation of law, their role being purely administrative. It is claimed that much more weight should be given to opinions expressed on the matter in discussions at the Security Council prior to the adoption of the resolution. The representative for India stated to the Security Council: It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories - I repeat, all the territories - occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967. The representatives from Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, as worded by the representative from Mali: "[Mali] wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text". Israel was the only country represented at the Security Council to express a contrary view. The USA, United Kingdom, Denmark, China and Japan were silent on the matter, but the US and UK did point out that other country's comments on the meaning of 242 were simply their own views. The Syrian representative was strongly critical of the text's "vague call on Israel to withdraw". The statement by the Brazilian representative perhaps gives a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions: I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242 242 calls for the establishment of peace and secure and recognized boundaries for all parties. I sure that for Syria the other side of the Golan Heights would be more secure for Syria, you should really note its secure borders for all parties not just Israel. And ever since Oslo the Palestinians need secure borders. It is not just about Israels secure borders. http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/c426c561856178058025647400468f80?OpenDocument http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument The longer Israel harps on about legality to the International courts Israel get treated more harshly. Saying that the Judge doesn't know their job does not get brownie points. ______________________________________________________________ You believe what you want. Ill believe what I know Kevin Spacey Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.
So that is your 'clear' statement of your position on UNSC 242, Abu . No wonder we differ on what the resolution 'really' means. I judge solely the text of the resolution that the members of the UNSC voted on. The statements from THESE members helps to clarify what they wanted. You, on the contrary, have as your core position - the statements of a US president, the US ambassador to the UN, and the Undersecratary of State. Here it comes Abu - NO WONDER WE DIFFER. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss what the US president formulated as the UN position on secure borders, for a few reasons: # Those 3 gentlemen do NOT represent the UNSC - and I don't care what their egos tell them. I am sorry, what they formulated is irrelevant to the meaning of what the majority of the members voted on. # And that was the text of UNSC 242, which mentions the withdrawal of Israel and it also mentions the need for secure Israeli borders, but not in the same breath. UNSC 242 does NOT instruct Israel to withdraw to secure borders. Instead it very clearly instructs a withdrawal from territories gained in the 1967 6-Day war. What is there not to understand by the preamble and the withdrawal clause Abu? So Abu, whether you like it or not, Israel has been in plain and direct violation of 242 for almost 40 years. And it follows perfectly logically that it is illegally occupying Palestinian territory (the unacceptability of territorial acquisition through war - the preamble to give the context - remember?). And please, don't bother quoting US presidents and undersecretaries again - even though they are well-known to honest, impartial and truth-loving officials. Now, given the above facts and the time lapse up to the 2nd infitada in 2000, do you think that the above might explain part of this Palestinian fury, or do you believe it should make them more friendly towards Israel? I hold my breath since nothing surprises me any longer in this loose debating style with its scant regard for logic or the meaning of simple words or the honesty of proper quotation.
Sure klipklan Ignore all the statements of the authors, and not just the USA authors, you want to key on. You also ignore the UNEQUIVOCAL statements of the British and main authors on how it should be read and what it means... and instead... we have kklipklap's version replacing, Lord Caradon, George Brown ("I formulated the Resolution"), Michael Stewart, Arthur Goldberg, Eugene Rostow, Kuznetsov (who objected to the very version adopted because it didn't mean completely withdraw), Joseph Sisco, George Shultz, Three Presidents, including the one of the time. (and others I didn't even post) You're as bad as Hashley. Just Ignore everything posted and declare your version despite a plethora of Original statements telling why you should Not read it that way. Oh, and of course the Palestinian and Syrian initial rejection of 242 Precisely because it didn't mean "all the territories". Just how do you Delude yourself on that kkklapklip? NEXT .
Like most people, for me the most important thing about legislation is the wording of laws, edicts, resolutions, pacts, etc., and not what people say about them before or afterwards. To place more emphasis on what an individual says than on the WORDS which were approved, is to invite choas .... exactly as we have seen in this thread. Let me try again to illustrate why I insist on reverting to the actual words. 1) Here is your quote by one of the authors on UNSC resolution 242: "Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... " Why was he worried about an interpretation that might imply "all" of the territories, when he himself clearly says it only means that Israel should withdraw from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War? What territories was he trying to ensure that Israel need NOT withdraw from? In 1991 he became more specific, stating "Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip." I repeat, what then were the territories NOT mandatory regarding (permanent) withdrawal. 2) Lord Caradon: You offered that Lord Caradon refused to include "ALL the territories". In that case why did he allow that noteworthy preamble which states - "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". Surely he was not so senile as to be able to recognise that if Israel was only required to withdraw from SOME territories, those that it did NOT withdraw from, would have been acquired by war, and hence be in complete conflict with the underpinning of the resolution as stated in the preamble. What was his idea as chief author of 242 of putting this Emphasis in as background to the intructions that followed? It seems to make zero sense if it is as you interpret 242. Let's look further at what the venerable Lord, chief author of UNSC 242 had to say to see if we can clear up this apparent conflict of meaning. "Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line (a poor choice of term in my opinion), I wasnt prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war." [Lord Caradon, United Nations Security Council Resolution Two Forty Two - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity (Georgetown University, 1981)] So, what we in fact see here are 2 authors of 242, both admitting that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissable, and the chief author calling this "an overwhelming principal". No matter what follows, from this it is absolutely clear that Israels occupation and, to make matters worse, its continued territorial land grab, is in plain and utter contravention of UNSC 242. No reasonable person with even the slightest command of English can misread the original text and the Caradon explanation. So why the emphasis on excluding "the". Caradon makes it clear that it is NOT SO AS TO ALLOW ISRAEL TO ACQUIRE TERRITORY BY ILLEGAL MEANS. Instead, he did not want the "1967 line" to be seen as permanent. As he later explains it, it might well have been that in future negotiations, some of this territory occupied by Israel might in fact become part of the Zionist State, in exchange for Israeli ground that would make more sense as part of a Palestinian state. The resolution should not preclude this acquisition by Israel. So Caradon is both clear that acquisition via war was not to be tolerated, as well as clear that final borders might be such that Israel's permanent acquisition of territory beyond the 1949 Armistice line should be possible, and hence its withdrawal should not be seen as a permanent prohibition. And obviously the problem was one of time. These weasel concepts were undertaken so as to get 242 through the security council. Commentaries by the vast majority of the voting members makes it clear that Israel was not meant to gain from instigating war. And here is where the mess started - UNSC 242 was meant to be implemented in a short period of time. Israel withdraws at almost the same time as permanent borders are determined by negotiation. But we all know that that is not what happened. The interpretation that "Until there is a peace deal, Israel could stay where it was" is a US view. Excuse me if I chose not to share it, and object to having it foist upon me. UNSC 242 says nothing of the sort - nothing. As we have seen recently, the "American" view on the ME is viewed as suspect by most of the remaining civilised world. Israels view is that it needs to withdraw only when there is peace and lasting secure borders. i.e. surprise, surprise, = the US position. The Palestinian people in general waiting until 1987 before the first intifada occurred - 20 years later. That's a long time to wait.
What a strange and Biased reading. (not surprising) Caradon and others didn't want territories won by war. They preferred, actually insisted, the Arabs just take a Territorial adjustment by negotiation or ascent, clearly in Israel's favor, rather than letting Israel have all the "War" conquered territory. But never meant Israel to return to the smaller/original "UNsecure" pre-1967 borders. Israel, in giving back the sinai, and more recently Gaza, (and offering app 95% of the WB) has probably given back 98% of the land area won already. Well within the parameters of a small adjustment. A small adjustment I already spelled out Twice with a link ("Golan and the 'mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria") Again as to his and Many Others intent.... specifically rejected Israel going back to the 67 borders. This just one of MANY Unequivocal ones I presented on the last page. There is no "Exchange" mentioned or necessary. This is a klitklap Fabrication, pulled out of a hat. Welcome to the Beeny Morris Historical society. At least you are coming around and partially responding to what WAS posted instead of fawning ignorance and Dishonestly just reading the Resolution without any background of how the language was indeed arrived at. It just took some beating into your not dense, but heavily biased Noggin. .
THE PLO'S PHASED PLAN Political Programme Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council Cairo, June 9, 1974 Text of the Phased Plan resolution: The Palestinian National Council: On the basis of the Palestinian National Charter and the Political Programme drawn up at the eleventh session, held from January 6-12, 1973; and from its belief that it is impossible for a permanent and just peace to be established in the area unless our Palestinian people recover all their national rights and, first and foremost, their rights to return and to self-determination on the whole of the soil of their homeland; and in the light of a study of the new political circumstances that have come into existence in the period between the Council's last and present sessions, resolves the following: 1. To reaffirm the Palestine Liberation Organization's previous attitude to Resolution 242, which Obliterates the national right of our people and deals with the cause of our people as a problem of refugees. The Council therefore refuses to have anything to do with this resolution at any level, Arab or international, including the Geneva Conference. ..." http://www.iris.org.il/plophase.htm Enjoy the rest of the Link too. In itself an interesting string topic. Speak to 'Hudna hamas' and their offer which pretty much is the 'Phased Plan'. . .
To bring you up to Date on the political situation Abu, as things have moved on in the 32 years since 1974. http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/c426c561856178058025647400468f80?OpenDocument Peace Progress to date 1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement 1949 Armistice Agreements 1978 Camp David Accords 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty 1991 Madrid Conference 1993 Oslo Accords 1997 Hebron Agreement 1998 Wye River Memorandum 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum 2000 Camp David Summit 2001 Taba Summit 2002 Road map for peace 2005 Israel's unilateral disengagement plan the last proposals (made by the Palestinians) Taba summit http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y The Oslo Accords http://www.historycentral.com/Israel/Documents/Oslo.html PLO recognition of Israel http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogn.html That rather super cedes your 1974 outdated material from Isis. Political Programme Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council Cairo, June 9, 1974 www. Iris.org A Pro-Israeli organization that provides a description of the history and goals of the Palestine Liberation Organization, from the pro-Israeli perspective. I am glad that they dont make any claim to impartiality.
or do you just roll out one of your stale CANNED multilinked posts- somewhere in the Vague direction of a discussion. Tell us about [Illiterate] "Mohammed's Tortured writing style"!!! Or that no ones really sure Arafat was born in Egypt.!! http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22429 Something settled TEN Years ago! Something one would never even know, you didn't, from all your Jerkoff arabist/anti-semite Links you use. Oh it was so complex according to you! Oh even his family and friends didn't know! OH no! Amazing, Truly amazing the classic "Planet Chomsky"- "You get to choose your own reality".. and have. 10 years it's been settled and you are telling us all this arab-line BULLSH*T blaming what is the truth on "Isreali Cliques"! Oh goofy how can you expect to be taken serioulsy!?!? You are the most unknowledgabele Link dumper/spaghetti-at-the-wall-er on the Planet. Your head is so far up your antizionist @ss, you can't discuss a single topic without dumping the same material in every post, in every string- no matter how off topic or far from/beside point. It's goofy watching you make a fool of yourself trying to 'participate' with these vague link dumps- many nearly identical, and as I said, canned posts. It's like you have only 8 posts- (and accompanying 20 links) with maybe 2 or 3 variants, and you copy them anywhere and everywhere. And your whole basic knowledge of the conflict Chosen with what would please your Bias, Benny Morris, whose perverse history it turns out (and which always rang false to non-bigots) was completely Wrong- and worse Fraudulent- like all the crap you paste up.. its so Sick and Transparently anti-semitic... ameu, Finkelstein, Morris, ZMAG, al-bushra, blah blah blah you bore. .
Abu you wrote:- Yes it is amazing how often you refer to the same topics that have been refuted many times in UN documents. Your postings then need to be refuted again and again with virtually the same pieces. I can only put it down to you not reading the links posted. But then you seem to have an aversion to Books and UN Document, preferring Israeli Fiction. Actually its from a book Abu. Arafat In the eyes of the Beholder by Janet Wallach and John Wallach. Foreword by Shimon Peres. 1997. Gosh its another first printing of the revised edition Ive got. PS they worked on the book for 5 years and speak from a pro Israeli stand point, which seems like a good place to start? A bit more clued up than a 5 minute Google search. Preface to First edition xvi Over the years, there has been much misinformation purveyed about Yasser Arafat, some of which he encourages to maintain the aura of mystery about his roots and some of which is deliberately engendered by those who want to destroy his credibility. We tried [Janet Wallach and John Wallach], as much as possible, to ignore hearsay, the disinformation and the malicious gossip, most of it bred in ignorance or sheer hatred. Wherever we [Janet Wallach and John Wallach] went, of course, we heard conflicting and often contradictory stories about Yasser Arafat. His origins, for example, are emblematic of the ambiguity that is Arafat. He passionately contends that he was born in Jerusalem and therefore Palestinian by birth; others claim with equal assurance he was born in Cairo or Gaza. An Egyptian birth certificate exists, and it seems to support such claims. However, we [Janet Wallach and John Wallach] found virtually no one in his family who believed he [Yasser Arafat] was born in Egypt. We [Janet Wallach and John Wallach] suggest an answer to the riddle of Arafats birth: that he was, as he claims born in Jerusalem, but in circumstances that still deeply embarrass him, circumstances of which he [Yasser Arafat] has never spoken openly because they involve the marital problems of his parents. A close relative even suggests that the birth certificate was a forgery, manufactured to help win Arafat the free university admission to which all Egyptians were entitled. Page 61. It was Zahwa Abu Saud, Arafats mother, who was his first source of grief. Her death, when he was four, caused his father to send him from Cairo to Jerusalem. So whatever you say he still came back to Jerusalem to live with his mothers family. Maternally he is still Palestinian. Or dont you accept maternal parentage for proof of linage. What does Simon Peres say about Yasser Arafat:- Tel-Aviv December 23rd 1996 Peres even refers to Yasser Arafat as Palestinian. In conclusion you are trying to put the clock back on a spurious point that is immaterial.
Benny Morris:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris Benny Morris in his own words:- Other useful links:- http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm http://www.meforum.org/article/466 So Efraim Karsh doesnt think he put all the quotes in full. Well 601 pages plus all the Appendix, Bibliography and Index would have been far longer was the gist of the quote retained? Putting the full quotes from Efraim Karsh doesnt seem to change the meaning at all, but thats for you to decide yourself. As you go on about it so much you must have read his [Benny Morris] book by now? More useful links:- http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html http://hnn.us/articles/3166.html Im not sure if this is a useful link or not? http://www.hirhome.com/israel/about_face.htm Was Dr. Francisco Gil-White fired from the University of Pennsylvania for political reasons? Francisco Gil-White on Fancisco Gil-White http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2322 Good use of the third person to write about himself!!! And his expertise is psychology!!! And back to a conspiracy theory that starts with Hitler!!! What else does he believe:- A Holocaust memorial that is in holocaust denial really. Have I missed something there or what?
Does anyone have any idea what's in ashley's above LINK DUMPS? We were TRYING to discuss Resolution 242 it's meaning and wording. The string topic; and klipklap and I were.. until crusader rabbit escaped from the Mental Ward just above. As usual, Mr Loony has dumped up more Benny Morris Material and more dumb bigoted Links to never-never-land. .
You brought up Yasser Arafat and subjected Benny Morris to cross examination. Or can't you remember? Let me remind you then:- Why bring something into the debate and then when utterly rebutted complain? I can only assume that you fail to read what you post let alone what anyone else does.
