Distracted by your egoistic instruction regarding contradictions? UNSCR 242 posted under Chapter VI was indeed non-binding; that is not under discussion. Capiche? However, UNSCR 338 was not worded as being posted under either Chapter VI or Chapter VII. So what is it. Let us check YOUR OWN REFERENCE .. reference 3: ^ Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 at paragraphs 87-116, especially 113: "It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to "the decisions of the Security Council" adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council. If Article 25 had reference solely to decisions of the Security Council concerning enforcement action under Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter, that is to say, if it were only such decisions which had binding effect, then Article 25 would be superfluous, since this effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter." Read carefully what the above says regarding the otherwise superfluousness of article 25. This is why pro-Israeli Eugene Rostow concludes: "This is the ultimate thrust of Resolution 338, a binding decision of the Security Council, with all the power and prestige of the decisions of the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case behind it. "Decisions" of the Security Council, like those for Rhodesia and Namibia, are rare and not lightly voted. Under article 25, they are legally binding on all member states. ---The Illegality of the Arab Attack on Israel of October 6, 1973, by Eugene V. Rostow The American Journal of International Law © 1975, p. 287 Furthermore, article 3 of UNSCR 338 uses the word "decides" regarding the need to embark on negotiations. A decision is absolutely binding in UN-speak. There is no debating this part at all. You need new law books Edwin. To point me to a reference that proves that UNSCR 242 is non-binding is laughable, since the whole world agrees to that. However, it takes on a different tenor when combined with 338. Rostow remains the most widely respected view on UNSCR 338 since he has been supported in it by ICJ opinions made by very senior legal authorities (which has NOTHING to do with ICJ judgments being binding as you mistakenly concluded). Conclusion: The weightiest legal opinions view UNSCR 338 as being binding. Regarding clause 3, there is absolutely no doubt that this is binding.
You need to learn to accept defeat graciously and move on. Your posts are embarrassing. UN Res. 242 is non-binding.
That's why thiis string was posted. So we know what the Law is. INCOMPLETE Withdrawal to NEW "Secure and Recognized borders" -
You don't have a case. You're simply inventing conditions which don't exist in the text. Israel must withdraw. All forces from ALL occupied territories. Why is that ? Because the Resolution affirms the unacceptability of the acquisition of territory by means of war. ALL war, that is. No distinctions are drawn. Further, all states of belligerency must end. Occupation is a belligerent state. You don't have a case.
How much do you wish to shrink Israel in order to achieve this goal? If one is unwilling to accept the green line as the border between both nations, then NEW "Secure and Recognized borders" means that Israel may be legally and properly shrunk back to the Partition Plan. Nothing defines that Israel must expand beyond the borders defined by the Partition Plan.
UNSCR 242 is ambiguously worded. I don't know why the intensions could not have been spelled out better at the time. I have pointed to McHugo's article as an excellent analysis of the complexities of this resolution. It does not say that Israel should withdraw to the Green Line. But is does say that Israel must withdraw. It also adds that safe boundaries must be involved in the withdrawal. So what does this apparently contradictary mess mean? It means that the Green Line wasn't perfect. That Israel need not withdraw to the green line, but that give-and-take should be negotiated to result in a win-win situation. The essence was that the parties should get around a table and negotiate who would give up what ground in exchange for which other piece. But it is absolutely and utterly clear that Israel should not win from her initiation of war in 1967. It did not say anything about buffer zones. It did not say anything about Israeli custodianship. The spirit was clearly one of give-and-take. It took me a long time to generate the will to carefully read McHugo's analysis. And the core essence was there all the time. I am not even going to grant the daft concept of territorial acquisition via ´defensive wars' any credence. But Meir and Dayan chose to do nothing. And then the realisation dawned that by doing nothing they could create the creeping 'facts on the ground', a policy which is in essence still in place today. In doing so M&D dropped the golden ball by not accepting Sadat's 1971 response to Gunnings questions as a basic position to build negotiations on. And the Isreali (and other) dead in the Yom Kippur war is on their shoulders. The Zionists trumpet that they offered peace immediately after the Six Day war. Notwithstanding overwhelming evidence in support, they refuse to acknowldege that this, one of the great Zionist myths, is in fact a falacy. They just keep on mindlessly repeating that Israel made the peace offer. To whom? They never say. With which document? They never say. Via which channels? They never say. All they do, beccause it is their last defense, is to repeat the mantra. Eretz Yisrael is still their goal. And that obstanacy will be their downfall one day.
So after 21 Months he's RETREATED to "ambiguous" from his original 100% Wrong position on page 1! Half way home. *CLANG* That's all one can hope for in getting people to admit they're Completely off. -
Exactly. So, if Israel is unwilling to negotiate a give and take, then NEW "Secure and Recognized borders" must be defined along the borders of the Partition Plan, since both Israel and Palestine need secure borders. Israel should be given the choice of negotiating a give and take, to finally accept the Partition Plan instead of endlessly rejecting it.
Israel Has made many offers.. including one to return ALL the territory in exchange for mere recognition right after the 1967 war. The Arabs REFUSED at the Khartoum Conference with the famous/infamous "three Nos". (look it up rookie) Spend some time learning before you post instead of the semantic/semite shenannigans that are 90% of your crap. -
i.b.; Klipkap had the grace to inform everybody that he'd changed his mind with regard to Res.242 some weeks ago. He's wrong, imo, which I've already expressed. The over-riding authority of Res.242 is the emphasis upon the inadmissibility of territory by means of war. Once you've understood that then there is no ambiguity to be discussed. Of course, borders may be altered by means of negotiation, according to that provision of the UN Charter, but such negotiations are not to be made under belligerent conditions, which are also identified in the Resolution. Israel is required to withdraw to a position which does not impinge upon those demands. It's perfectly clear and that was what was voted upon. That's why the OPT is viewed as belligerently occupied today . Israel's occupation is illegal. It doesn't receive any legitimacy from Resolution 242 . Such ' legitimacy ' is invention for the purposes of stalling, as Klipkap points out.
Yes, After I pointed out that the little remembered GENERAL ASSEMBLY Res 519, calling for "all ' the territory was Voted down in that Larger Body (in addition to NOT getting withdrawal from "all' the territiory in 242] He had little choice. And Caught him UNGRACIOUSLY/DISHONESTLY witholding a Link by an Arab leader ADMITTING IT was ambiguous (read back) He also had NO Choice. I [Had to] post HIS link which said there was indeed doubt. The whole point OF the letter He withheld. But I agree he's wrong on ambiguous. Here are the AUTHORS themselves to Clear Any Doubts. What a treat it is not to have JUST poster opinions but the authors Themselves! Going to argue with them? LOL
You still don't have a case. There is no doubt that ' final borders ' are a matter of negotiation . That is according to the law. However, such negotiation is a matter between the parties involved, in this case the Palestinians and the Israelis BUT there cannot be negotiations until the ' state of belligerency ' ends, and that means that the belligerent occupation must cease according to the principal of the inadmissibility of gaining territory . Let's see it in all its legal clarity- inadmissibility. You can waffle on all you like about ' ambiguity ', ' negotiations ', ' security ', etc., but none of these can operate without a complete withdrawal. Why ? Because each of these sidesteps are intended to filch territory and that is inadmissible. Wow. Why do you think that the Zionists, and their investors, do NOT want to go to court ?
I also think there cannot be negotatians if the parties involved such as Hamas claim Israel should be destroyed. Palestinians are not proper partners in this process. they are backwards and indoctrinated by a Facist book named the Quran, there will be no peace.
Well, I think that such unnecessary and extreme generalizations speak for themselves. Everyone has the right to believe as they wish.
OK Moon and Shiva.. Got to it! Of course Shiva knows this, but will keep repeating the contrary. A Partial from One of THREE Page One posts by Abu-Afak.
Asides are not relevant to official documents. Any monkey can attempt to cover his ass after the event. The UN voted on the document as presented. No asides were voted upon. Next.
Sorry sweetie, but yet again, you were humiliated by the facts. We'll soon see you running off to another thread since this one is dead to you.
You'd be well advised to revisit a definition of ' fact ' before representing any of the swill that neoZionists have offered up in this thread to date. Bear in mind, if you are able, the United Nations voted on the text of the document, not any provisos presented by anybody else either before or after. The document is clear and logical, two elements that you'd, no doubt, prefer to fudge.
Microsoft CEO Stave Ballmer would disagree. "Our Company Almost As Israeli as American" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985800.html Have you hugged a Zionist today?
That would mean the entire Arab Muslim Middle East cesspool would be obliterated. One can dream, right?
