I have gone quiet on this thread because I realise, Abu, that you and I have irreconcilably different ethical and procedural views which prevent us from having meaningful debate.

You believe that weasel-wording about the intended meaning of 242 is critical and overwhemingly pertinent. You believe that statements by lawyers, draftees and miscellaneous commentators such as US presidents dictate the "real meaning" of 242.

I reject these views - our discord is just that simple. I prefer to respect the democratic process of voting for what it is meant to be - the empowerment of certain individuals to cast a vote on the wording of a proposal as they read it. Wikipedia summarises this view as follows:

QUOTE: 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 opinons 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.UNQUOTE

So I give the most weight to what the voting persons said they had voted on. To give more importance to the utterances of some administrators is to simply subvert the democratic process by word weaseling.

The majority of UNSC members voted - a verifiable fact - that Israeli armed forces should "withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict" based on "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".

My view is that uncomplicated and non-weaselly.

By the way Abu, your are starting with your personal attacks again - please stop.