Yes this interpretation of mr foot's position is easily contradicted by hugh foots account a few years later in conversation with A Eban. I posted my views on another site called debate politics. if anyone would like to see the responses just ask.
Let us examine what it would mean if this interpretation of Mr Brown, so enthusiastically supported by Zionist web sites, Abu-Afak and ibeletesri, were to be considered applicable to all International Law. For instance, let us apply it to the following phrase, also from the same UNSCR 242: According to your logic, Mr B, since UNSCR 242 of 1967, Egypt need never have provided Israel with navigation rights through the Straits of Tiran. There is clearly no 'the' before 'international waterways'. According to Abu-Afak's, Mr Browns and your interpretation of UNSCR 242 Egypt was required to guarantee freedom of navigation only for SOME of the international waterways (Mr B bizarrely suggests that it means FROM NONE), but NOT from ALL OF THEM. Is this what you mean also? If not, why not? I mean, you can't pick and choose which non-existent 'the' means something in one case but not in the other. This was pointed out long ago as being one of the many criticisms of the Zionist interpretation of 242 provided by John McHugo (summarised here) McHugo continues with further rebuttal by urging his readers to consider the wording of the armistice agreement that ended fighting on the western front at the end of the First World War Is this really the way you interpret these internationally legal agreements, including UNSCR 242?
The majority of scholars believe that UNSC Resolution 242 is the key to peace in the southern Levant. As such it is beneficial, and also totally on-topic, to quote McHugo's recent paper on the legal aspects of 242: Ouchies!!
OUCHIES indeed. "AustraliansForPalestine.com" citing the infamous Dope McHugo and his Dog on the lawn trick? Is that a Joke? That's NO rebuttal to the well elaborated Statements of the Author's THEMSELVES! Not only failed content again, but Failed Logic. We don't need subsequent interpretation/mental-Gymnastics to the Authors own Stated Intent. - -
The only gymnastics I read are your feeble attempts at shoring-up the web of Zionist lies. It won't work; the myth has been exposed for what it so patently is. Here, you forgot this: http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf
So you don’t even attempt to refute McHugo’s ample demonstration that the presence or absence of a “the” is immaterial in defining the territories that the Israeli Armed Forces should withdraw from, the international waterways that should have free access, or the implementation of a cease-fire after a horrible war? OK. But then don’t quote the issue of the “the” in future, because you are toothless on the matter. That has been recorded here. It is that simple. So, since you can no longer point to the absent “the” for support, all that you are left with are the authors of 242. Let’s be clear, the only ammunition that you have in your pouch, is what the author’s said they intended. Were all the persons in your washing list, authors of 242? Mmmm? But does what they say matter at all? Obviously the main legal importance is the text of the resolution itself. But how does one interpret a text which is deliberately vague. The authors say it is the great strength of 242. The detractors say it is 242’s great weakness. And the decider in this ping-pong match is the fact that UNSCR 242 has given rise to much controversy and is toothless. It failed. Or did it? Legal experts advise that, in a case of ambiguous wording, such as UNSCR 242, one needs to include the debates prior to the vote to obtain the context (and here the main authors directly participating in the resolution have their say), and view all within a framework of international law: So it seems that the text of the resolution is the prime source of meaning, but that fuzziness can be removed by indeed referring to the inputs of the authors, but also that of the voting members explaining their interpretation as to what they are voting on, and setting all of this in the framework of International Law. Do you agree that this is a well-founded and scholarly approach, Mr B?
No it is what it is bunk!!! Here is the official give and take...and, please this time take the chip off your shoulder and read and understand... . United Kingdom - 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. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution." (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67) - 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 Honorable 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. 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." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70) B. United States of America - 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 . . . " (S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 1 1.67) - 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 neighbors involved." - 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." to be continued
continued from previous - Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 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." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69) b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between Israel and its neighbors 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 6 C. 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) D. Brazil - Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242: "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 neighboring States." (S/PV. 1382, p. 66, 22.11.67).
1) I challenged you to refute that Rabin, Begin and Allon all acknowledged that Nasser was not going to attack in 1967, but you went deaf. I provided Tom Segev's references from his research and you just claim him (by inclusion above) to be a blatant propagandist. And you do all this without getting even close to a fact, just by "saying so". Your scholarliness, OYM, is transparently clear. You cannot handle factual data. But let me not participate further in the hijacking of this thread. 2) Secondly, and more on-topic, I would suggest that you refrain from making generalised comments without quoting references, especially since you accuse me of using blatant propagandists, at least I reference my data. But since you chose to do so, I challenge you to show me that the following persons were drafters of UNGAR 242 (from i.beletesri): Michael Stewart; Joseph Cisco; Vasily Kuznetsov; (now by Hbendor); Michael Stewart once again; that President Lyndon Johnson was a drafter of UNSCR 242. But even more to the point, I challenge you to show why the words of the drafters should be held in higher or even equal regard to those of the voting delegates? The votes were cast given certain understandings regarding the meaning of 242. [Understandings of the other voters not supplied by HBendor will be forthcoming … read and understand ] [When i.beletesri every manages to find where he proved me guilty of fraud on Morris or Ben-Gurion or whatever, I will get back to you on that also, but I refuse to tilt at windmills]
Youve just proven that Klip Klap's quote was entirely accurate in intent and meaning by its truncation! As demonstrated here; How can you defend your behaviour here now?
So partial quotes are now fraud? Says who? The postulation is utterly ridiculous. So I am forced to conclude that you take this stance out of pure personal malice. Creation has provided a very lucid demonstration that my quote of Begin perfectly adequately and fairly addresses the point that was under discussion, namely that the Sabra Generals and the Israeli politicians, Begin included, knew that Nasser was sabre-rattling and did not plan to attack. Begin admits there was no proof of an imminent attack. In fact he acknowledges that there was evidence to the contrary. These facts I also refrained from including. Is this also fraud? I have made responses to the factual content of your first three accusations of fraud in line with forum rules in the thread referenced in blue. But after this fourth disgusting performance I am not disposed to repeat this patience, since I am now tired of your flagrant abuse of forum rules and have, instead, reported you to the moderators.
Sure they are. The way You use them. Watch what I can do yours with the SAME method and now you are going for what? That you are only a "partial quoter" and not a COMPLETE Fraud? Is that your defense?!?! Pleading Murder 2 instead of Murder 1? Indignant about it no less! See. That Truncation produces Fraud. Reversed meaning. (as in A Benny Morris quote in the LYING Post of yours I link below with Two "Nots" left out which Reverses the meaning.) And it's Not even as bad as the ones you've Used/ABUSED. ie, the last where the whole Context, including the NEXT sentence is Dropped. DESPICABLE. Other even worse that that. Again, With Those four "quotes", and your Ourageous LYING I showed here: http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/195623-benny-jets.html#post4146035 MODS? Que Pasa? "Never reneged?" "Never Recanted?" LIE/LIE/LIE as posted at kk Many times. <<MOD EDITERSONAL ATTACK>>> <<<MOD EDIT: OFF TOPIC This happened in another forum>>>> <<<MOD EDIT: OFF TOPIC DO NOT DISCUSS OTHER POSTERS>>>> But by all means, let's have a Panel of Mods decide if your quotes are intentionally Misleading/Have opposite meaning due to Massaging/truncation/or Fraudulent/Deceiving for any other reason. (this post memorialized/saved by me for reference) -
I would here direct anyone reading this thread to indeed go to the threads where IB claims he has uncovered Klip Klap's fraud. Please go there and read the response. You will find that the charges are baseless. It is the reason that after the charges are made by IB, no follow up is provided. Let us consider, where is the evidence that Morris had recanted his original contentions? Does it come from Benny Morris himself? Or does it come from Efraim Karsh? It seems that every time, you make a grand charge, then refuse to respond in detail to the rejoinder. Why? And why are you lying about me? I wasnt banned for plagiarism from debatepolitics. I was banned because in response to a terse debate about israel / palestine I was accused of being a sock puppet. Plagiarism at least at first, as you know isnt a bannable offense there, or here probably,
I used a quote in which the author excised part of the original text, and you accuse me of fraud for having made reference to such a third-party quote? Tell me, Beletesri, how do you personally quote something from a book, if excising any text is now, according to you, a fraud? Beletesri … are you OK? You still avoid the question I asked, namely whether you are guilty of fraud for referencing text my Joseph Shmuel on www.eretzyisrael.org in which he utterly distorted the writing of someone whom he was supposedly quoting. I ask again; with your recent definition of what represents fraud (which I utterly disagree with) … have you not just found yourself also guilty of 'fraud'? Did you EVER bother to read my recent post in rebuttal of your simple reference to Karsh’s work? Did you ever bother to absorb that I had quoted Teveth and not Morris? Did you EVER bother to digest why Morris was in fact correct, given the differences between the official Hebrew and equally official English vrsions? And did you EVER stop for a brief second in your headlong rush to accuse me, to internalise the fact that when Morris admitted that he had gone too far, it was on a totally and utterly different topic to the one of Ben-Gurion’s letter to his son? Or does that sort of fact mean nothing to you? Beletesri, I regret to inform you that your reference proves nothing except your same repetition that shows that, like Karsh, you do not appreciate that there were English and Hebrew versions of the letter, both sanctioned by Ben-Gurion. Please calm down and take a few seconds to consider the rebuttal data provided by Rabbi Simons, instead of launching into a new series of LIES/LIES/LIES …. FRAUD!!! GUILTY!!! GUTTED!! It is of such a low scholarly value and shows utter disrespect for the Forum and its participants. And I am not longer willing to accept this combination of refusal to even acknowledge that valid data have been presented that do not support your position, and when you sinply repeat your previous quotes which have been validly criticised, and then launch into more LIES/LIES … FRAUD FRAUD; YOU HAVE BEEN GUTTED. DISHONEST. I am truly tired of this schoolboy ranting.
The Original Link (you obviously haven't bothered to go check) was from the Wikipedia entry for Efraim Karsh! It Quotes Benny Morris Himself with footnote. That Footnote was I believe the Morris quoted in the NY Times Book review of Karsh's [then] relatively newer Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians. The Morris quote/Admission can still be found in many spots on the net, including some Wiki Mirror sites. I can no longer discuss your problems on another board. - -
Ok whatever IB, Ill not get further into this with you before we see you defend your charges and have the decency here to respond to the latest post from Klip Klap first who youve chosen to make wide scale charges against. So far youve attempted wide spread accusation and intimidation against various members here, including me. So lets see you respond to klip klap. All further posts from me re you will be requesting that you do so. Youre not gettig away with anything this time.
In re the post on the top of this page... More from Mr Rostow on 242. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267 [.....] Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969. He helped draft Resolution 242. • Telegram from the Department of State to the U.S. Interests Section of the Spanish Embassy in the United Arab Republic summarizing Rostow’s conversation with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin: Rostow said ... resolution required agreement on "secure and recognized" boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted. • Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pgs 894-96: ... the question remained, “To what boundaries should Israel withdraw?” On this issue, the American position was sharply drawn, and rested on a critical provision of the Armistice Agreements of 1949. Those agreements provided in each case that the Armistice Demarcation Line “is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims or positions of either party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” ... These paragraphs, which were put into the agreements at Arab insistence, were the legal foundation for the controversies over the wording of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Security Council Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967. ... The agreement required by paragraph 3 of the resolution, the Security Council said, should establish “secure and recognized boundaries” between Israel and its neighbors “free from threats or acts of force,” to replace the Armistice Demarcation Lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June, 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines, as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the resolution, and in a condition of peace. On this point, the American position has been the same under both the Johnson and the Nixon Administrations. The new and definitive political boundaries should not represent “the weight of conquest,” both Administrations have said; on the other hand, under the policy and language of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, and of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967, they need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines. ... This is the legal significance of the omission of the word “the” from paragraph 1 (I) of the resolution, which 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. • Jerusalem Post, “The truth about 242,” Nov. 5, 1990: Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 ... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to “secure and recognized borders,” which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949. .. The omission of the word “the” from the territorial clause of the Resolution was one of its most hotly-debated and fundamental features. The U.S., Great Britain, the Netherlands, and many other countries worked hard for 5½ months in 1967 to keep the word “the” and the idea it represents out of the resolution. Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from “the” territories or “all the territories” occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all DEFEATED Both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. ... Those who claim that Resolution 242 is ambiguous on the point are either Ignorant of the history of its negotiation or simply taking a convenient tactical position. • The New Republic, “Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies,” Oct. 21, 1991: Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims. • The New York Times, “Don’t strong-arm Israel,” Feb. 19, 1991: Security Council Resolution 242, approved after the 1967 war, stipulates not only that Israel and its neighboring states should make peace with each other but should establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Until that condition is met, Israel is entitled to administer the territories it captured – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip – and then withdraw from some but not necessarily all of the land to “secure and recognized boundaries free of threats or acts of force.” • The Wall Street Journal, “Peace still depends on the two Palestines,” April 27, 1988: ... Resolution 242 establishes three principles about the territorial aspect of the peace-making process: 1) Israel can occupy and administer the territories it occupied during the Six-Day War until the Arabs make peace. 2) When peace agreements are reached, they Should Delineate “secure and recognized” boundaries to which Israel would withdraw. 3) Those boundaries could differ from the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949. • Institute for National Strategic Studies, “The Future of Palestine,” November 1993: The second territorial provision of Resolution 242 is that while Israel should agree to withdraw from some of theterritories it occupied in 1967, it need not withdraw from all those territories. The Resolution states that there should be "withdrawal of Israeli's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Five and a half months of vigorous diplomacy, public and private, make it very clear why the wording of the sentence took the form it did. Motion after motion proposed to insert the words "the" or "all the" before the word "territories." They were all defeated, until finally the Soviet Union and the Arab states accepted the language as the best they could get. [.....]
Actually you were Just answered in re "where the quote came from": Wikipedia entry for Karsh Citing/Quoting Benny Morris' Admission from a NY Times Book Review. And you have NOTHING in reply to Your False and lazy innuendo "where did it come from". Similarly, I have answered/Exposed/elaborated all I need to of Other klipkap Bogus quotes. The record stands as it is. I need Not indulge embarrassed Baiting form you or him. Baiting, I might add that doesn't deny the quotes are Misleading, just doesn't like the word Fraudulent. Pretty sad argumentation. If you now admit/threaten all your future posts will be identical Harassment, than you have a problem with the rules here... Too. One I will make sure gets noticed. - -
Indeed you cant discuss my problems with another forum, perhaps you could share your recent abuse to me in the reputation and Personal Message formats. Indeed lets forget KK for a while, you seem eminently capable of that. Ah yes the original link. The recantation from BM, best exampled surely in this; http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/debates/Morris, Refabricating 1948.pdf there you go, the actual pfd of what BM actually thinks. Recantation? lets see, a few questions; why does BM speak of ben gurion's 'mile long' evidence of transfer thinking? Why does BM describe karsh as similar to holocaust deniers who use one scarp of evidence to hang an argument while ignoring the mass of evidence that goes the other way? Sound like a treatise of recantation to anyone? If so id love to hear why. But lastly how dare you accuse KK of baiting you? Hes been nothing but polite to you, and still you refuse to answer him - why?
