Quote:
Originally Posted by abu-afak";p="
If you didn't ((understand Abu's position)) it was spelled out fairly specifically in my First post: again:
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.
|
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.