Abu, I am now thoroughly confused. YOU have indicated your agreement with the following on a number of occasions now:

"UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, NOT from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... " OK, so this bit is 100% clear to me.

So then which are these "the" or "all" or "some" territories that are in addition to those gained in the course of the 6 Day War, from which Israel is not required to withdraw and which needed such carefully drafting of missing definite articles to enable Israel to remain in control of them? What land is this that was not define in the 1949 armistice?

It seems that I am absolutely clueless as to what land you are talking about. My apologies. Please help. Your assistance aid in avoiding further mismatched debate.

If you didn't it was spelled out fairly specifically in my First post: again:

Abu wrote:

Statements by Security Council representatives
Supporters of an "all territories" reading point out that the intentions and opinions of draftsmen are not normally considered relevant to the interpretation of law, their role being purely administrative. It is claimed that much more weight should be given to opinions expressed on the matter in discussions at the Security Council prior to the adoption of the resolution. The representative for India stated to the Security Council:

It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories - I repeat, all the territories - occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967.

The representatives from Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, as worded by the representative from Mali: "[Mali] wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text".

Israel was the only country represented at the Security Council to express a contrary view.

The USA, United Kingdom, Denmark, China and Japan were silent on the matter, but the US and UK did point out that other country's comments on the meaning of 242 were simply their own views. The Syrian representative was strongly critical of the text's "vague call on Israel to withdraw".

The statement by the Brazilian representative perhaps gives a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions:

I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_242

242 calls for the establishment of peace and secure and recognized boundaries for all parties. I sure that for Syria the other side of the Golan Heights would be more secure for Syria, you should really note it’s secure borders for all parties not just Israel. And ever since Oslo the Palestinians need secure borders. It is not just about Israel’s secure borders.

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/...0?OpenDocument

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/...9?OpenDocument

The longer Israel harps on about legality to the International courts Israel get treated more harshly. Saying that the Judge doesn't know their job does not get brownie points.
__________________________________________________ ____________
You believe what you want.
I’ll believe what I know Kevin Spacey

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

So that is your 'clear' statement of your position on UNSC 242, Abu . No wonder we differ on what the resolution 'really' means.

I judge solely the text of the resolution that the members of the UNSC voted on. The statements from THESE members helps to clarify what they wanted. You, on the contrary, have as your core position - the statements of a US president, the US ambassador to the UN, and the Undersecratary of State.

Here it comes Abu - NO WONDER WE DIFFER. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss what the US president formulated as the UN position on secure borders, for a few reasons:

# Those 3 gentlemen do NOT represent the UNSC - and I don't care what their egos tell them. I am sorry, what they formulated is irrelevant to the meaning of what the majority of the members voted on.
# And that was the text of UNSC 242, which mentions the withdrawal of Israel and it also mentions the need for secure Israeli borders, but not in the same breath. UNSC 242 does NOT instruct Israel to withdraw to secure borders. Instead it very clearly instructs a withdrawal from territories gained in the 1967 6-Day war. What is there not to understand by the preamble and the withdrawal clause Abu?

So Abu, whether you like it or not, Israel has been in plain and direct violation of 242 for almost 40 years. And it follows perfectly logically that it is illegally occupying Palestinian territory (the unacceptability of territorial acquisition through war - the preamble to give the context - remember?). And please, don't bother quoting US presidents and undersecretaries again - even though they are well-known to honest, impartial and truth-loving officials.

Now, given the above facts and the time lapse up to the 2nd infitada in 2000, do you think that the above might explain part of this Palestinian fury, or do you believe it should make them more friendly towards Israel?

I hold my breath since nothing surprises me any longer in this loose debating style with its scant regard for logic or the meaning of simple words or the honesty of proper quotation.

Sure klipklan

Ignore all the statements of the authors, and not just the USA authors, you want to key on.

You also ignore the UNEQUIVOCAL statements of the British and main authors on how it should be read and what it means...

and instead...

we have kklipklap's version replacing, Lord Caradon, George Brown ("I formulated the Resolution"), Michael Stewart, Arthur Goldberg, Eugene Rostow, Kuznetsov (who objected to the very version adopted because it didn't mean completely withdraw), Joseph Sisco, George Shultz, Three Presidents, including the one of the time. (and others I didn't even post)

You're as bad as Hashley.
Just Ignore everything posted and declare your version despite a plethora of Original statements telling why you should Not read it that way.

Oh, and of course the Palestinian and Syrian initial rejection of 242 Precisely because it didn't mean "all the territories".
Just how do you Delude yourself on that kkklapklip?

NEXT

.

Like most people, for me the most important thing about legislation is the wording of laws, edicts, resolutions, pacts, etc., and not what people say about them before or afterwards. To place more emphasis on what an individual says than on the WORDS which were approved, is to invite choas .... exactly as we have seen in this thread.

Let me try again to illustrate why I insist on reverting to the actual words.

1) Here is your quote by one of the authors on UNSC resolution 242:
"Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... "

Why was he worried about an interpretation that might imply "all" of the territories, when he himself clearly says it only means that Israel should withdraw from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War? What territories was he trying to ensure that Israel need NOT withdraw from?

In 1991 he became more specific, stating "Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip." I repeat, what then were the territories NOT mandatory regarding (permanent) withdrawal.

2) Lord Caradon: You offered that Lord Caradon refused to include "ALL the territories". In that case why did he allow that noteworthy preamble which states - "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". Surely he was not so senile as to be able to recognise that if Israel was only required to withdraw from SOME territories, those that it did NOT withdraw from, would have been acquired by war, and hence be in complete conflict with the underpinning of the resolution as stated in the preamble. What was his idea as chief author of 242 of putting this Emphasis in as background to the intructions that followed? It seems to make zero sense if it is as you interpret 242.

Let's look further at what the venerable Lord, chief author of UNSC 242 had to say to see if we can clear up this apparent conflict of meaning.
"Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line (a poor choice of term in my opinion), I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war." [Lord Caradon, United Nations Security Council Resolution Two Forty Two - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity (Georgetown University, 1981)]

So, what we in fact see here are 2 authors of 242, both admitting that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissable, and the chief author calling this "an overwhelming principal". No matter what follows, from this it is absolutely clear that Israels occupation and, to make matters worse, its continued territorial land grab, is in plain and utter contravention of UNSC 242. No reasonable person with even the slightest command of English can misread the original text and the Caradon explanation.

So why the emphasis on excluding "the". Caradon makes it clear that it is NOT SO AS TO ALLOW ISRAEL TO ACQUIRE TERRITORY BY ILLEGAL MEANS. Instead, he did not want the "1967 line" to be seen as permanent. As he later explains it, it might well have been that in future negotiations, some of this territory occupied by Israel might in fact become part of the Zionist State, in exchange for Israeli ground that would make more sense as part of a Palestinian state. The resolution should not preclude this acquisition by Israel.

So Caradon is both clear that acquisition via war was not to be tolerated, as well as clear that final borders might be such that Israel's permanent acquisition of territory beyond the 1949 Armistice line should be possible, and hence its withdrawal should not be seen as a permanent prohibition.

And obviously the problem was one of time. These weasel concepts were undertaken so as to get 242 through the security council. Commentaries by the vast majority of the voting members makes it clear that Israel was not meant to gain from instigating war.

And here is where the mess started - UNSC 242 was meant to be implemented in a short period of time. Israel withdraws at almost the same time as permanent borders are determined by negotiation. But we all know that that is not what happened.

The interpretation that "Until there is a peace deal, Israel could stay where it was" is a US view. Excuse me if I chose not to share it, and object to having it foist upon me. UNSC 242 says nothing of the sort - nothing. As we have seen recently, the "American" view on the ME is viewed as suspect by most of the remaining civilised world.

Israels view is that it needs to withdraw only when there is peace and lasting secure borders. i.e. surprise, surprise, = the US position. The Palestinian people in general waiting until 1987 before the first intifada occurred - 20 years later. That's a long time to wait.

What a strange and Biased reading. (not surprising)
Caradon and others didn't want territories won by war.
They preferred, actually insisted, the Arabs just take a Territorial adjustment by negotiation or ascent, clearly in Israel's favor, rather than letting Israel have all the "War" conquered territory.
But never meant Israel to return to the smaller/original "UNsecure" pre-1967 borders.

Israel, in giving back the sinai, and more recently Gaza, (and offering app 95% of the WB) has probably given back 98% of the land area won already.
Well within the parameters of a small adjustment.

A small adjustment I already spelled out Twice with a link ("Golan and the 'mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria")

Again as to his and Many Others intent.... specifically rejected Israel going back to the 67 borders. This just one of MANY Unequivocal ones I presented on the last page.

There is no "Exchange" mentioned or necessary.
This is a klitklap Fabrication, pulled out of a hat.
Welcome to the Beeny Morris Historical society.

At least you are coming around and partially responding to what WAS posted instead of fawning ignorance and Dishonestly just reading the Resolution without any background of how the language was indeed arrived at. It just took some beating into your not dense, but heavily biased Noggin.
.

THE PLO'S PHASED PLAN

Political Programme
Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council
Cairo, June 9, 1974
Text of the Phased Plan resolution:
The Palestinian National Council:

On the basis of the Palestinian National Charter and the Political Programme drawn up at the eleventh session, held from January 6-12, 1973; and from its belief that it is impossible for a permanent and just peace to be established in the area unless our Palestinian people recover all their national rights and, first and foremost, their rights to return and to self-determination on the whole of the soil of their homeland; and in the light of a study of the new political circumstances that have come into existence in the period between the Council's last and present sessions, resolves the following:

1. To reaffirm the Palestine Liberation Organization's previous attitude to Resolution 242, which Obliterates the national right of our people and deals with the cause of our people as a problem of refugees. The Council therefore refuses to have anything to do with this resolution at any level, Arab or international, including the Geneva Conference. ..."

http://www.iris.org.il/plophase.htm

Enjoy the rest of the Link too.
In itself an interesting string topic.
Speak to 'Hudna hamas' and their offer which pretty much is the 'Phased Plan'.
.
.

To bring you up to Date on the political situation Abu, as things have moved on in the 32 years since 1974.

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/...0?OpenDocument

Peace Progress to date

1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
1949 Armistice Agreements
1978 Camp David Accords
1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty
1991 Madrid Conference
1993 Oslo Accords
1997 Hebron Agreement
1998 Wye River Memorandum
1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum
2000 Camp David Summit
2001 Taba Summit
2002 Road map for peace
2005 Israel's unilateral disengagement plan

the last proposals (made by the Palestinians) Taba summit

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y

The Oslo Accords

http://www.historycentral.com/Israel...ents/Oslo.html

PLO recognition of Israel

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ce/recogn.html

That rather super cedes your 1974 outdated material from Isis.

Political Programme
Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council
Cairo, June 9, 1974

www. Iris.org

A Pro-Israeli organization that provides a description of the history and goals of the Palestine Liberation Organization, from the pro-Israeli perspective. I am glad that they don’t make any claim to impartiality.

or do you just roll out one of your stale CANNED multilinked posts- somewhere in the Vague direction of a discussion.

Tell us about [Illiterate] "Mohammed's Tortured writing style"!!!

Or that no ones really sure Arafat was born in Egypt.!!

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22429

Something settled TEN Years ago!

Something one would never even know, you didn't, from all your Jerkoff arabist/anti-semite Links you use.
Oh it was so complex according to you! Oh even his family and friends didn't know! OH no!

Amazing, Truly amazing the classic "Planet Chomsky"- "You get to choose your own reality".. and have.
10 years it's been settled and you are telling us all this arab-line BULLSH*T blaming what is the truth on "Isreali Cliques"!
Oh goofy how can you expect to be taken serioulsy!?!?

You are the most unknowledgabele Link dumper/spaghetti-at-the-wall-er on the Planet.
Your head is so far up your antizionist @ss, you can't discuss a single topic without dumping the same material in every post, in every string- no matter how off topic or far from/beside point.

It's goofy watching you make a fool of yourself trying to 'participate' with these vague link dumps- many nearly identical, and as I said, canned posts.
It's like you have only 8 posts- (and accompanying 20 links) with maybe 2 or 3 variants, and you copy them anywhere and everywhere.

And your whole basic knowledge of the conflict Chosen with what would please your Bias, Benny Morris, whose perverse history it turns out (and which always rang false to non-bigots) was completely Wrong- and worse Fraudulent- like all the crap you paste up.. its so Sick and Transparently anti-semitic... ameu, Finkelstein, Morris, ZMAG, al-bushra, blah blah blah you bore.

.