Quote:
|
Halla during a discussion what the author intended or not is completely inconsequential. What is raised in the discussion matters and what is written in the final resolution.
|
wrong ashley, 242 was supplemented explanatory discourse by the authors just so that it would not be buffeted by political winds in the malodorous chambers of the great UN.
what you are saying it analogous to saying the koran is a stand alone document when in fact it meaning is found in the hadiths.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security,
|
indeed, the reason for those words was because of the belligerency of the arab toward israel with intent of destroying israel.
to continue with ashley's vargaries:
Quote:
halla wrote (View Post):
" ... 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)
One little problem there as 1973 doesn't exist.
|
what you are saying is that israel doesn't have established borders and indeed that is true. that will come when israel/palestinians make final peace accommodations with fixed borders and peace.
since israel doesn't have established borders the land israel came in control of cannot be considered as an "acquisition of territory by war" because the entity that controlled it controlled it illegally. i am referring here to egypt/jordan and gaza/west bank. egypt and jordan acquired by the war of '48 land that was to be negotiated between israel and the "palestinians". egypt and jordan contained the "palestinians" in refugee camps and not coherent "palestinian" polity existed to assume responsibility. even today there doesn't exist a coherent "palestinian" polity with which israel can negotiate final status of peace with established borders.
if ashley can prove that the palestinians were able to govern for themselves while being contained in the refugee camps by the jordanians and egyptians her argument might be strengthened. but then ashley would have to explain the need for the racist palestinian charter which got its first expression in July 1-17, 1968, well after israel had removed the illegal jordanians and egyptians from the palestinian mandate.
to this ashley excerpt:
Was it because he felt that the inclusion of "the" and "all" would have been
Quote:
|
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:-
|
yes we already know:
Quote:
Israeli Rights in the Territories
Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles -- Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This deliberate language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. For example, the Soviet Union attempted to introduce the word "all" before the word "territories" in the British draft resolution that became Resolution 242. Lord Caradon, the British UN ambassador, resisted these efforts.10 Since the Soviets tried to add the language of full withdrawal but failed, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the withdrawal clause contained in Resolution 242, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council.
Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."11 Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart.
Actually, the last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The members of the League of Nations did not create the rights of the Jewish people, but rather recognized a pre-existing right, that had been expressed by the 2,000-year-old quest of the Jewish people to re-establish their homeland.
Moreover, Israel's rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Article 80 established that nothing in the UN Charter should be "construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments." These rights were unaffected by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947 -- the Partition Plan -- which was a non-binding recommendation that was rejected, in any case, by the Palestinians and the Arab states.
Given these fundamental sources of international legality, Israel possesses legal rights with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip that appear to be ignored by those international observers who repeat the term "occupied territories" without any awareness of Israeli territorial claims. Even if Israel only seeks "secure boundaries" that cover part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, there is a world of difference between a situation in which Israel approaches the international community as a "foreign occupier" with no territorial rights, and one in which Israel has strong historical rights to the land that were recognized by the main bodies serving as the source of international legitimacy in the previous century.
|
dore gold
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm
one always has to defer to the author of the words because only the author knows what the author said, that is the reason for explanatory notes.
thus making this statement:
Quote:
You Believe what you want
I'll believe what I Know ....Kevin Spacey "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil"
|
defined ignorance