Abu you wrote:-

Yes it is amazing how often you refer to the same topics that have been refuted many times in UN documents. Your postings then need to be refuted again and again with virtually the same pieces. I can only put it down to you not reading the links posted.

But then you seem to have an aversion to Books and UN Document, preferring Israeli Fiction.

Actually it’s from a book Abu. “Arafat In the eyes of the Beholder” by Janet Wallach and John Wallach. Foreword by Shimon Peres. 1997. Gosh it’s another first printing of the revised edition I’ve got. PS they worked on the book for 5 years and speak from a pro Israeli stand point, which seems like a good place to start? A bit more clued up than a 5 minute Google search.

Preface to First edition xvi

Over the years, there has been much misinformation purveyed about Yasser Arafat, some of which he encourages to maintain the aura of mystery about his roots and some of which is deliberately engendered by those who want to destroy his credibility. We tried [Janet Wallach and John Wallach], as much as possible, to ignore hearsay, the disinformation and the malicious gossip, most of it bred in ignorance or sheer hatred. Wherever we [Janet Wallach and John Wallach] went, of course, we heard conflicting and often contradictory stories about Yasser Arafat.

His origins, for example, are emblematic of the ambiguity that is Arafat. He passionately contends that he was born in Jerusalem and therefore Palestinian by birth; others claim with equal assurance he was born in Cairo or Gaza. An Egyptian birth certificate exists, and it seems to support such claims. However, we [Janet Wallach and John Wallach] found virtually no one in his family who believed he [Yasser Arafat] was born in Egypt. We [Janet Wallach and John Wallach] suggest an answer to the riddle of Arafat’s birth: that he was, as he claims born in Jerusalem, but in circumstances that still deeply embarrass him, circumstances of which he [Yasser Arafat] has never spoken openly because they involve the marital problems of his parents. A close relative even suggests that the birth certificate was a forgery, manufactured to help win Arafat the free university admission to which all Egyptians were entitled.
Page 61.

It was Zahwa Abu Saud, Arafats mother, who was his first source of grief. Her death, when he was four, caused his father to send him from Cairo to Jerusalem.

So whatever you say he still came back to Jerusalem to live with his mothers’ family. Maternally he is still Palestinian. Or don’t you accept maternal parentage for proof of linage.

What does Simon Peres say about Yasser Arafat:-

Tel-Aviv December 23rd 1996

Peres even refers’ to Yasser Arafat as Palestinian. In conclusion you are trying to put the clock back on a spurious point that is immaterial.

Benny Morris:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

Benny Morris in his own words:-

Other useful links:-

http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

http://www.meforum.org/article/466

So Efraim Karsh doesn’t think he put all the quotes in full. Well 601 pages plus all the Appendix, Bibliography and Index would have been far longer was the gist of the quote retained? Putting the full quotes from Efraim Karsh doesn’t seem to change the meaning at all, but that’s for you to decide yourself. As you go on about it so much you must have read his [Benny Morris] book by now?

More useful links:-

http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html

http://hnn.us/articles/3166.html

I’m not sure if this is a useful link or not?

http://www.hirhome.com/israel/about_face.htm

Was Dr. Francisco Gil-White fired from the University of Pennsylvania for political reasons?

Francisco Gil-White on Fancisco Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2322

Good use of the third person to write about himself!!! And his expertise is psychology!!! And back to a conspiracy theory that starts with Hitler!!!

What else does he believe:-

A Holocaust memorial that is in holocaust denial really. Have I missed something there or what?

Does anyone have any idea what's in ashley's above LINK DUMPS?

We were TRYING to discuss Resolution 242 it's meaning and wording.
The string topic; and klipklap and I were.. until crusader rabbit escaped from the Mental Ward just above.

As usual, Mr Loony has dumped up more Benny Morris Material and more dumb bigoted Links to never-never-land.

.

You brought up Yasser Arafat and subjected Benny Morris to cross examination. Or can't you remember? Let me remind you then:-

Why bring something into the debate and then when utterly rebutted complain?

I can only assume that you fail to read what you post let alone what anyone else does.

Abu you haven't debated a thing. Plenty of cut and paste on 242 you have been shown all the evidence but when anything gets too difficult or taxing you just ignore it.

All you do is try to ram the anti-Palestinian view down everybody’s throat.

You have been told territorial expansion by military means is not legal and still you bang one claiming that’s a debate. Most of you posts consist of abuse, that’s not debate.

You style is "agree with me or I'll shoot you", that is not debate that’s thuggery.

Every one that dares to disagree with your world view is termed anti-Semitic. What a great comeback if must have taken ages to think of that, such wit such style.

Your prose read like a Neanderthal on Ritalin.

But to go over it again as you clearly are unable to grasp any details whatsoever:-

Klipkap wrote:-

From the Resolution 242 full wording in Klipkaps posting.

I then just filled in on what the court judgments were and that the Palestinians also had the right of self determination and of secure borders, implying that all parties were to have secure borders.

Klipkap then finished the debate off with:-

End of debate, please feel free to come back when you have something interesting to say!

And the rest of the time I’ve just been playing around with you. The Debate finished ages ago Abu. To go over it again with you is worthless.

By the way you lost it Klipkap won. Four aces beat a bluff any day.

Or are you still confused?

klip made your point already Assley in just a few sentences, not an Incoherent Link Dump-- and it was rebutted already.
But thanks for this OP to pop up Caradon's statements Again.

Lord Caradon, an [chief] author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

"We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately..
We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever."

MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978


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.

I have gone quiet on this thread because I realise, Abu, that you and I have irreconcilably different ethical and procedural views which prevent us from having meaningful debate.

You believe that weasel-wording about the intended meaning of 242 is critical and overwhemingly pertinent. You believe that statements by lawyers, draftees and miscellaneous commentators such as US presidents dictate the "real meaning" of 242.

I reject these views - our discord is just that simple. I prefer to respect the democratic process of voting for what it is meant to be - the empowerment of certain individuals to cast a vote on the wording of a proposal as they read it. Wikipedia summarises this view as follows:

QUOTE: 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 opinons 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.UNQUOTE

So I give the most weight to what the voting persons said they had voted on. To give more importance to the utterances of some administrators is to simply subvert the democratic process by word weaseling.

The majority of UNSC members voted - a verifiable fact - that Israeli armed forces should "withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict" based on "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".

My view is that uncomplicated and non-weaselly.

By the way Abu, your are starting with your personal attacks again - please stop.

Abu I think Klipkap has been lenient with you:-

For the UK

Lord Caradon, an [chief] author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

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

For the USA

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

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

For the USSR

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

As though the rest of the world has no voice or don't you agree with democracy?

Whatever was said about UN resolution 242 is by and large immaterial as that which came after was the Oslo Accords which superseded UN resolution 242 as Shimon Peres said

“In short, we had to work toward establishing a new Middle East based on prosperity and hope instead of poverty and anguish.”

“This was not the time for memories. It was a time to form a new agenda. The accord in Oslo and the ceremony in Washington were but a stepping-stone from which to leap higher and farther than ever before.”

Peres, Shimon. The New Middle East, Henry Holt and Company, NewYork:1993.

The world moves on and people learn, Peres obviously did and so did Arafat. You have been left behind on a barren rocky shore, re-fighting a long dead war using outdated material.

Oslo Accords gave five Years for a hand over what happened to Israel complying with their side of the Accords?

I still see no rebuttal to the UNequivocal statements of the Drafters (and voters) on this resolution.

Nor to the logic presented along the way about Arab rejection and only Grudging and SUBSEQUENT 'acceptance' of what they knew the Res DidN'T mean originally and Rejected.

Of course one could one say except some vague refeernce to 'Word Weaseling'.. Ironically it was the MIStranslation of the French that Arabs and antizionist now cease upon. THAT'S 'weaseling'.