03-17-2008, 05:53 PM
|
|
Sr. Correspondent
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 513
|
|
when anything is said and there is a residual ambiguity then one should defer to what the authors of statement meant and not the spin of prejudiced parties. that is why the opinions of resolution 242 authors need to be considered. the authors of 242, Lord Caradon and Arthur Goldberg are needed for clarification.
Quote:
Various other officials have commented on the negotiation of UNSCR 242 and how it relates to Israel's position. The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them."
The United States' UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that:
"The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words "the" or "all" and the "June 5, 1967 lines" ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. [This would encompass] less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably Insecure."
|
palestinefacts
|