Quote:
Originally Posted by ashleykennedy";p="
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.
|
[quote="halla";p="421826"]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:
Originally Posted by ashleykennedy";p="
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,
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
indeed, the reason for those words was because of the belligerency of the Arab toward Israel with intent of destroying Israel.
|
So your understanding of the English language brings you to the conclusion that “every state” is translated as “Israel only”?
Quote:
|
5. That this session may prove to be crucial and a turning point has been expressed by many representatives in the Council, which has had "The Palestine question" on its agenda for the last twenty years; whether it may be so depends basically on the safeguarding of Arab rights, so far ignored and disregarded.
|
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063!OpenDocument
Oh dear halla you are wrong again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
to continue with Ashley’s vargaries:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
halla wrote (View Post):
|
Still not able to use the quote button then halla?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by S/PV. 1373
" ... 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 1373 doesn't exist.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
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.
|
No just your quote of S/PV 1373 does not exist, this is the third time of telling. Your quote does not exist.
That will never come about. Israel is after peace first to continue its ‘expansionist programme without any opposition. The Palestinians are after their private property back and an end to theft before contemplating any peace. That means there will be no accommodation of Israeli policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
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".
|
Israel has never declared any border at any time in its history. The annexation by Jordan of the West bank was never accepted and was an occupation. Egypt never tried to annex Gaza and it was legally an occupation
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
Egypt and Jordan contained the "Palestinians" in refugee camps and no 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.
|
That is there is no coherent Palestinian polity that Israel is willing to negotiate with. A Palestinian polity has been in existence for quite a while. But as in the 60’s 70’s and 80’s where Israel wasted over 40 years ignoring the facts on the ground and Israel is continuing that policy today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
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 his 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,
|
That has been shown by the PA in the west bank areas that have been handed over.
And the Palestinian Charter was amended. This just leaves the racist charters of the Israeli political parties to amend.
And can Israel prove that Israel can govern itself? So far the Israeli experiment has been a failure. Israel has been unable to act like a Democracy, Israel has been unable to stay within a border, and Israel has a racist apartheid system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
well after Israel had removed the illegal Jordanians and Egyptians from the Palestinian mandate.
|
And now the racist illegal (by Israeli law) Israelis have to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
to this ashley excerpt:
|
[quote="ashleykennedy";p="421715"]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 and 10 members in the debate said "all" and "the" was implicit as the principle of the resolution. Will we ever know:-
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
yes we already know:
|
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,
To right we do. Some people read the whole document and not just one line.
Had “all” and “the” been used then Israel would have to give up western Galilee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
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
|
Oh goody a right based on a historical claim of a city state that existed some 2,500 years ago. He’d be laughed at in a kindergarten coming out with that sort of cr*p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
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.
|
One has always to see the debate to find the correct solution.
Why did Lord Caradon not say his entire little party piece in the discussion? He had ample place to, because his argument had already been covered and refuted.
Mr. MAKONNEN (Ethiopia)
Quote:
|
33. With regard to the principles that need to be affirmed, we deem it most essential that due emphasis be put on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and hence on the imperative requirement that all Israel armed forces be withdrawn from the territories occupied as a result Of military conflict, and likewise on the need to ensure conditions of permanent peace in which all States in the area can live in security free from threats or acts of force. It follows from this that we seek the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and consider that there should be, mutual respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and, political independence of all States in the area.
|
Mr. PARTHASARATHI (India)
Quote:
|
46. Members of the Council will recall that during the fifth emergency special session an overwhelming majority of Member States of the United Nations, whether they voted for the Latin American draft resolution 2/ or the non-aligned, Afro-Asian draft resolution, 3/ had reaffirmed the principle of non-acquisition of territory by military conquest and had supported the call for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces to the positions they held prior to the outbreak of the recent conflict on 5 June 1967. On this point there was universal agreement among the membership of the United Nations. Similarly, there was considerable agreement on the principle that every State has the right to live in peace and complete security free from threats or acts of war and consequently all States in the area should terminate the state or claim of belligerency and settle their international disputes by peaceful means. This was considered essential so that withdrawal does not lead to the emergence of the unfortunate situation of part war and part peace which existed in the area prior to the outbreak of hostilities on 5 June 1967.
|
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063!OpenDocument
Quote:
Originally Posted by halla";p="
thus making this statement:
defined ignorance |
Yes I can defiantly see how that could be thought of as being silly.
So what did the authors have to say:-
Quote:
26 September 1967, at the twenty-second session of the General Assembly, 1567th meeting, para. 91.Mr. Brown had this to say:
"I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw. But equally, Israel's neighbours must recognize its right to exist, and it must enjoy security within its frontiers. What we must work for in this area is a durable peace, the renunciation of all aggressive designs, and an end to policies which are inconsistent with peace."
|
As quoted by Mr. PARTHASARATHI (India) from the verbatim records