Abu you haven't debated a thing. Plenty of cut and paste on 242 you have been shown all the evidence but when anything gets too difficult or taxing you just ignore it.
All you do is try to ram the anti-Palestinian view down everybody’s throat.
You have been told territorial expansion by military means is not legal and still you bang one claiming that’s a debate. Most of you posts consist of abuse, that’s not debate.
You style is "agree with me or I'll shoot you", that is not debate that’s thuggery.
Every one that dares to disagree with your world view is termed anti-Semitic. What a great comeback if must have taken ages to think of that, such wit such style.
Your prose read like a Neanderthal on Ritalin.
But to go over it again as you clearly are unable to grasp any details whatsoever:-
Klipkap wrote:-
Quote:
|
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,
|
From the Resolution 242 full wording in Klipkaps posting.
Quote:
(*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!!
|
I then just filled in on what the court judgments were and that the Palestinians also had the right of self determination and of secure borders, implying that all parties were to have secure borders.
Klipkap then finished the debate off with:-
Quote:
Abu, this is starting to look silly. Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:14 pm
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.
abu-afak wrote (View Post):
Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: [b]"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...
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?
|
End of debate, please feel free to come back when you have something interesting to say!
And the rest of the time I’ve just been playing around with you. The Debate finished ages ago Abu. To go over it again with you is worthless.
By the way you lost it Klipkap won. Four aces beat a bluff any day.
Or are you still confused?
