Quote:
|
You'll notice Miss Halla that speaker after speaker said Israel MUST go back to the 67 line. Which is what the list of speakers was for.
|
ashley, if i were to tell you as author of what you said what you really meant to say you would object, thus ashley, sweetness, one must defer to the authors of 242 and not to political hacks representing dying regimes such as the dead Soviet Union and representatives dyfunctional islamic countries.
to this:
" ... 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)
Quote:
|
Was it because he felt that the inclusion of "the" and "all" would have been stronger. The word "the" and "all" was not included because of US and UK 10 members in the debate said "all" and "the" was implicit as the principle of the resolution. Will we ever know:-
|
wrong ashley: the soviet argued for the inclusion of "all" but lost.
Quote:
THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242
"The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242], tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change...Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.' When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution [calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines] but it was Not a viable alternative to the UK text...Members [of the UN Security Council] voted and adopted the [UK drafted] resolution unanimously..." (UN Security Council Resolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28.
Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242: "...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is Lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, Failed to command the requisite support..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973).
|
once again for ashley. when you defer to me for what you say and the meaning of what you say then perhaps you have an argument for others determining what the authors of 242 said and meant to say. until you have determined that only i know what you said and meant to say you speak in ignorance of the true meaning of 242.