Thread: Resolution 242; What it REALLY means

Always quiet on the SERIOUS BREACH of the 4th Geneva Convention by the US funded Israeli occupying forces in the Stolen Palestinian territories.

Its understandable because there is no defense for this violation. IS THERE FOLKS!

And remember, the 4th Geneva Convention was specifically drafted after WW2 in order to prosecute NAZI War Crimes and atrocities.

How Ironical that for almost 40 years the US funded Right Wing Undemocratic Israeli regime has been in direct violation of the same Geneva Conventions that were applied to the NAZI's in WW2.

It is like dancing on the graves of those who gave their lives in WW2, and spitting in the faces of those who survived.

You also need to deal UN Resolutions, here are some:

UN Resolution 194
UN Resolution 465
UN Resolution 1322

and of course the famous UN Resolution 242 which CAN ONLY BE VIEWED VIA THE PRISM OF THE US/ISRAELI INTERPRETATION. And this why Apologists for the Israeli Occupation of Palestine carry this specific interpretation of UN Resolution 242 everywhere they go. Have you noticd that FOLKS?

Exposed to the light, the fraudulant darkness withers away like a decaying corpse in the marshes of Hades.

(Israel's answer was handed to Dr. Jarring on 26 February 1971 and made public by the Israel Government on 8 March 1971.) [once again square brackets linking to UNSC 242 and the "prior commitments" proposed in the Jarring aide memoire]

[Quote] Pursuant to our meetings on 8 February and 17 February, I am instructed to convey to you, and through you to the UAR, the following:
Israel views favourably the expression by the UAR of its readiness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel and reiterates that it is prepared for meaningful negotiations on all subjects relevant to a peace agreement between the two countries.
The Government of Israel wishes to state that the peace agreement to be concluded between Israel and the UAR should inter alia include the provisions set out below.
A. Israel would give undertakings covering the following:
1. Declared and explicit decision to regard the conflict between Israel and the UAR as finally ended, and termination of all claims and states of war and acts of hostility or belligerency between Israel and the UAR. [complies with Jarring conditions]
2. Respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the UAR. [compliance with 242]
3. Respect for and acknowledgement of the right of the UAR to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. [compliance with 242]
4. Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from the Israel-UAR cease-fire line to the secure, recognized and agreed boundaries to be established in the peace agreement. Israel will not withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967 lines. [in flagrant violation with UNSC 242 and rejecting Israels main 'prior commitment' needed to make the Jarring initiative go forward]
5. In the matter of the refugees and the claims of both parties in this connection, Israel is prepared to negotiate with the Governments directly involved on: [Here Israel inserts it's terms for the continuation of the process , something that Sadat did not do]
a. The payment of compensation for abandoned land and property. [This is a TOTAL slap in the face of any peace process. UNSC 242 clearly states “a just settlement”. Note the insulting and manipulative use of the word 'abandoned' as though the ethnic cleansing of Palestine villages never happened. “We will pay you for the land from which we ethnically cleansed you”!!]
b. Participation in the planning of the rehabilitation of the refugees in the region.
Once the obligations of the parties towards the settlement of the refugee issue have been agreed, neither party shall be under claims from the other inconsistent with its sovereignty. [Given (a) above, this “participation” in “planning” does not sound even remotely like UNSC 242]
6. The responsibility for ensuring that no war-like act, or act of violence by any organization, group or individual originates from or is committed in the territory of Israel against the population, armed forces or property of the UAR. [In accord with the Jarring aide memoire]
7. Non-interference in the domestic affairs of the UAR. [in accord]
8. Non-participation by Israel in hostile alliances against the UAR and the prohibition of stationing of troops of other parties which maintain a state of belligerency against the UAR. [in accord]

B. The UAR undertakings in the peace agreement with Israel would include: [all of these were already committed to by the UAR 11 days before, - total compliance by them - so I will not repeat the UAR's "prior commitments". [UNQUOTE]
______________________________ _______________
When we compare the UAR and the Israeli responses to Jarring, what do we see?

We see the UAR expressly agreeing to a framework based on UNSC resolution 242 and also committing to each and every one of “prior commitments” that Ambassador Jarring set for both parties. Israel on the other hand made resounding deviations from the framework of both UNSC 242 and from the Jarring “prior commitments”. In particularly she makes two conditions which she knows the Arabs would never accept - 1) no link to UNSC 242 (she insists on being in flagrant violation of this UN Security Council resolution); and 2) she insists on keeping land that was never allocated to her in the partition process but which she occupied as a result of war, i.e. she is in direct conflict with the Geneva Convention.

Oddly enough (!) Israel has never been sanctioned for either of these two gross infractions.

Exactly the opposite of the UAR’s conciliatory tone, Israel’s response was a door-slammer to peace. And it is plain for all to see that this door-slam on peace initiatives was the single greatest contributory factor to the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

But the Zionist myth is that the Jews are peace-seeking and that the Arabs have never done anything significant to seek a solution to the major problems of the southern Levant. In the case of this crucial example from 1971 we can that this is absolute rubbish.

“But you only provided one example.” Have patience.

Your Two Posts Full of Unreadable Blocks of Typeface, copy-and-pasted from MFA (now zio sources are OK at least) PURPORTING to show an Arab Peace initiative. The Jarring Intiative. al-Jarring maybe?
"What happened?"

What was the UN Jarring Mission in 1968-1970?

Dr. Gunnar Jarring, Sweden's Ambassador to the Soviet Union, was appointed by the United Nations to work with Israel and the Arab states to try to implement UN Security Council Resolution 242.

This was a strange appointment because Jarring remained Ambassador to the Soviet Union, a country which had Broken off its diplomatic relations with Israel, making it difficult or impossible for Jarring to do anything that might be viewed as favorable to Israel.

Jarring met with parties in the Middle East in early 1968, but the Arab states refused direct or even indirect contact with Israel and Jarring was not the man to challenge them.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_jarring.php



Let's see... in this string alone you've ben Gutted on so many claims.. from what the res 242 meant, who voted on it!, If they knew what they were voting on! ...
and more recently.. who/what created the 1948 refugees.... posted at least one plagiarized/Unsourced bunch of snippets, then a Fraudulent snippet from the same source once/only after I Forced you to divulge that source and then I debunked that.

I was going to let you out gracefully at the bottom of the last page with your meaningLESS copy-and-paste and let you have the Last Word to save Face (considering what happened on the last page). Resolution 242; What it REALLY means
As the post really didn't say anything. As the one above doesn't.

But you're a tireless little 'Israel' basher and will always try and dig up some new/old Dog bone- even if/WHEN it turns out you've gotten it Upside down or it's Irrelevant.
As in this case. Like all the others.

Bye for now (maybe forever-- it's Sad at this point to continue).
In the meantime I've hopefully saved the board at least from the Rest/a continuation of the same page you were plastering up here in multiple doses.

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

Your Two Posts Full of Unreadable Blocks of Typeface, copy-and-pasted from MFA (now zio sources are OK at least) PURPORTING to show an Arab Peace initiative. The Jarring Intiative. al-Jarring maybe?
"What happened?".

What is your point with this verbal fruit salad? Do you object to me cutting-and-pasting my sources, sources that were previously referenced by me? When were factual Zionist sources ever wrong? Did the UAR or did they not comply with what Jarring asked in order for him to be able to unlock the stalled process? Provide references please and cut the ad hominem weaselling.

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

What was the UN Jarring Mission in 1968-1970?

Dr. Gunnar Jarring, Sweden's Ambassador to the Soviet Union, was appointed by the United Nations to work with Israel and the Arab states to try to implement UN Security Council Resolution 242.

This was a strange appointment because Jarring remained Ambassador to the Soviet Union, a country which had Broken off its diplomatic relations with Israel, making it difficult or impossible for Jarring to do anything that might be viewed as favorable to Israel.

Once again, what is your point? Did the UAR or did they not promise to move forward, whereas Israel instead put up 2 massive stumbling blocks? You keep saying you rebut my posts but you just continue with inconsequential weaselling. You don’t prove ANYTHING.

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

Jarring met with parties in the Middle East in early 1968, but the Arab states refused direct or even indirect contact with Israel and Jarring was not the man to challenge them.

Correct. Once again, what's your point? How does it rebut in any form the thesis of my two previous posts, namely that the UAR was willing to provide Jarring with the commitments to move forward while Israel placed to massive barriers in his path?
________________________
Your post is typical of ad hominem weaselling, meaning that is pretends to debate but in fact tosses out random facts (or fiction) that do nothing to refute other contributions, that do not address the core issues, and that provide no information of value to the debate. Your post is full of inconsequential red herrings and I challenge you to show that even one of your supposed rebuttals above refutes my thesis that in early 1971 the UAR was cooperating in a peace process while Israel was creating major hindrances.

There’s the challenge Beletesri – now gut me. Or get off the weaselling pot.

Originally Posted by i.beletesri

You provide NO sources for your claims or quotes.

Clearly Plagiarized/Lifted from some revisionist wonderland- perhaps old Benny Morris crap?
(much of it Recanted/re-revised/Proved Fraudulent since written. Hard to keep up with Beeny)

and NONE of which refutes the FACT that without the Arab-Started War There would not be these Refugees.
No Doubt Military operations during the [Arab Started] war created refugees! but that was MY contention not yours.

You asssert 'myth' but then unwittingly prove the Myth was fact.

Bizarre

Your first half of the above quote is obvious weaselling - I mean look at it!! No facts, no reasoning, no nothing.

The second part is the bone-worrying bit. Let me spell it out to you Beletesri by making my own statements and then analysing them.

If Israel had complied with UN Security Council resolution 242, there would not be the refugee problem. Correct? Yes, but it is a rubbish piece of reasoning because it ignores the cause-and-effect of a whole chunk of history that went before and presumes a predictable course of history thereafter.

If the Israelis had not embarked on ethnic cleansing of Arab villages, there would not have been the refugee problem. Correct? Yes, but it is a rubbish argument because it ignores prior history and presumes too much.

If the Israelis had not committed the Deir Yassin and other similar atrocities, the ancestral occupiers of the land might not have fled, and there might not have been the refugee problem. Correct? Yes, but it is rubbish because it ignores history and presumes future events.

If the Arabs had not declared war on Israel (your thesis this one Beletesri) their might not have been the refugee problem. Correct? Yes, but rubbish because it ignores history and presumes no future events leading to refugees.

If the Zionists had not unilaterally declared the independence of Israel, but had waited for a full implementation of Resolution 181, there might not have been the Arab-Israeli war and the refugee disaster might not have occurred. Correct? Yes, it is correct.

So based on this last point, the Israelis are responsible for the refugee problem? Take this man behind the barn and ….

So do you get it now Beletesri. The refugee problem has multiple sources. It is not a positive contribution to maintain that the Arabs caused the problem because they attacked Israel. Amongst the many other issues to be analysed, is the question whether they had any option other than attacking Israel, and why. Amongst these issues one has to address Benny Morris’ findings and proofs other than to declare them ALL irrelevant because Mr Morris provided them.

You choose to pick on one single event in the entire spectrum of influences on the Palestine refugee disaster and conclude that, if that had not happened, the refugee problem would not have occurred. And you insist, and insist again on this line of reasoning.

I don’t. I tried to look at the total picture and on that basis made up my mind where the bulk of the blame lies, because many parties obviously contributed.

Originally Posted by Foolosophy

Always quiet on the SERIOUS BREACH of the 4th Geneva Convention by the US funded Israeli occupying forces in the Stolen Palestinian territories.Its understandable because there is no defense for this violation. IS THERE FOLKS!And remember, the 4th Geneva Convention was specifically drafted after WW2 in order to prosecute NAZI War Crimes and atrocities.How Ironical that for almost 40 years the US funded Right Wing Undemocratic Israeli regime has been in direct violation of the same Geneva Conventions that were applied to the NAZI's in WW2.It is like dancing on the graves of those who gave their lives in WW2, and spitting in the faces of those who survived.You also need to deal UN Resolutions, here are some:

UN Resolution 194
UN Resolution 465
UN Resolution 1322
and of course the famous UN Resolution 242 which CAN ONLY BE VIEWED VIA THE PRISM OF THE US/ISRAELI INTERPRETATION.

And this why Apologists for the Israeli Occupation of Palestine carry this specific interpretation of UN Resolution 242 everywhere they go. Have you noticd that FOLKS? Exposed to the light, the fraudulant darkness withers away like a decaying corpse in the marshes of Hades.

You obviously have a major problem in tackling the anove listed UN resolutions and the 4th Geneva Convention.I wonder why you all run away from these and focus on a specific interpretation of UN resolution 242 by Israel and the USA? How convenient.

Originally Posted by abu-afak

"..Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:

Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"

Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did.
It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...



Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"

Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read Concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."...."



Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:

"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders.
The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and Not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will NOT withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

USA

Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):

"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."



Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law/Public Affairs, Yale University.. 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:

a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and Not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'.
Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' Failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, Not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines."

USSR

- Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

" ... 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)

+More at link below

http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242b.html

How True Vasily. How true.

Klippy please note underlined portions above as they explain how 242 should be read- and the whole rest of the Direct quotes of all the main authors explains the balance of the Intent.

Negotiated borders and a small buffer in Israel's Favor were Always seen.. until recent revisionism.
-

ShivaTD?

You're up buddy.
You're a wealth of MISinformation -- ALL of it anti-Israel.

Let's by all means make 242 the basis for Peace..
as opposed to ShivaTD's other Stated Choice.. the Ahmahinjihad 'one-state' (destruction of Israel) plan.
-

What's all this stuff about "illegal Occupation"...

There AREN'T any Legal borders!

-

There AREN'T any Legal borders!

Really ? What happened to them ?