Abu, you seem to continue to have a misconception about that critical democratic process called voting. It is meant to record the views of those who are entitled to vote. No more - no less.

So what the author of a resolution said he meant is supremely uninteresting. What REALLY IS interesting is the debate in the UN and what the voting delegates said that they were understanding on any particular issue. You see Abu, that is why the explanations of India and Brasil's representatives are indeed infinitely more pretinent that Lord C's explanations. He didnt have a vote. Understand?

So please stop refering to what the good Lord said he meant. It might be intersting, but it is not pertinent to the outcome.

Should you have difficulty in understanding the voting system, I can point you to some basic web pages on the topic. Read my lips, Abu. The Delegates vote, not the resolution's author.

Much play has been made of the wording to UN resolution 242 and the fact that it doesn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But was that deliberate.

I myself know very well that the 1967 boundaries were not the original Partition boundaries and if the resolution had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that they wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier.

So obviously the UN was not prepared to recommend the 1967 Green line but the original partition boundary.

It is only reasonable that readers of 242 defer to the authors of 242 and not passing political vagaries.

indeed Link Dumping to bury not only what was written but what the authors of what was written said the intent of what was written is the recourse of beggared argument.

Not quite it followed a debate where points were raised.

The representative for India stated to the Security Council:-
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063!OpenDocument

And all the 242 says is:-

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUT...df?OpenElement

The First World War led to the rise of self-determination and to calls for the prohibition of war, prompted the reconstruction of international law and the consequent abolition of "title by conquest." Modern law has been used as a means of discouraging war by denying the title to the conqueror.

The thing with GA resolutions is you are supposed to read the whole resolution and not just one word.

ashley: the absurdity of what you say can be put this way - what you say and what you meant to say as the author of you post has no meaning. i will tell you what you meant by what you said and you must believe me that i know better than you on what you said!

ashley demonstrates beggared logic. especially without consulting the author on the author's intent! you begin to sound like arafat interpreting un resolution 194 as the definition of the palestinians "sacred right of return" while urging violence against israel.

For UN GA resolutions it is not what the Author intended but what the GA intends by voting. The Authors (UK) abstained.

It has always been the right of People to return to their own property irrespective of boundary changes. Para 11 resolution was only stating normal practice not a "Palestinian sacred right" but all peoples right.

ashley: wrong ashley. 181((partition) was what the brits abstained from not from 242. for interpreting what 242 means one needs to go to the authors of 242.

now let us just do that:

THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242

"The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242], tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change...Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.' When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution [calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines] but it was Not a viable alternative to the UK text...Members [of the UN Security Council] voted and adopted the [UK drafted] resolution unanimously..." (UN Security Council Resolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28.

Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242: "...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is Lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, Failed to command the requisite support..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973).

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...
- Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another.
Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was NOT to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' [1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17).
The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft, which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council. (American Society of International Law, 1970).

UNSC RESOLUTION AND ISRAEL'S DEFENSIBLE BORDERS:

A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of 'secure boundaries' for Israel. They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler.
The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.' (Prof. Ezra Zohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000).

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/242a.html

now ashley others can opine what the authors of 242 meant but that is gossip. it is only when the authors him/herself speak to what they wrote can we understand their intentions. surely you are not that dense!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/com...838915,00.html

The pre-amble for 242 says it all really. All or the is irrelevant.

The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East.
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,

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUT...df?OpenElement

And what was said in the debates:-

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."

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063!OpenDocument

That pretty much says it.

As with all chambers it is not what the intention of the author that counts it is the debate that follows.

And why the spurious use of the US drivel when the US weren't even the authors???? The US is not the voice of the UN. It is one of many voices.

not really ashley. it is an interpretation only. which is permitted. but to get to the real meaning one needs to consult the authors.

The pre-amble for 242 says it all really. All or the is irrelevant.

ashley: you have an argument here ashley but to acquire territory by war required one to have initiated the war. israel didn't initiate the war it was the arabs that initiated the war to indeed make a land grab of israel. when israel successfully won the defensive war she was left with land that was part of the palestinian mandate to be negotiated between the concerned parties. the arabs, including the yet to be named palestinian arabs had fled the field. to this day israel wants to negotiate final boundaries with the arabs. but alas they still hold out for all of the palestine mandate. i refer you to the yet to be amended palestinian charter (covanent)

so israel and the arabs have a long way to go.

Or even better consult the document itself. As in read the preamble which the Author wrote and all the Security Council voted on.

Address by Prime Minister Begin at the National Defence College- 8 August 1982

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967

US State Johnson Administration Volume XIX

May 11, 1967 Israeli PM Eshkol states, "In view of the 14 incidents in the past month alone it is possible that we will have to adopt measures no less drastic than those of April 7." UPI circulated a rumour (May 12) that Israel was trying to topple the Syrian regime. The incidents included shelling, terror attacks and attempted infiltration of a Syrian agent to blow up locations in Jerusalem.

May 12, 1967 Remarks by Yitzhak Rabin interpreted as provocative against Syria. Rabin is rebuked by Eshkol.

May 13, 1967 Soviets inform Anwar Sadat in Moscow that Israel is massing 10-12 brigades in preparation for an attack on Syria, supposedly to take place May 17. The information is denied by Israeli Government. But:-

3. El Feki followed all of this most carefully and with genuine interest. He said that he was particularly struck by the fact that whereas the Israelis denied any build up on the Syrian border, no mention was made of Jordanian border. He also read from one of his intelligence reports which highlighted fact that yesterday's Jerusalem parade did not include any significant heavy equipment, thus revealing that such equipment had been kept with units.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/jo.../xix/28052.htm

May 14, 1967 First reports of Egyptian troop movements into Sinai.

May 16, 1967 Radio Cairo broadcast stated: "The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel."

May 18, 1967 Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser orders the United Nations Emergency Force to leave Sinai.

May 20 1967, Egypt began withdrawing its troops from Yemen, and Israel re-evaluated the situation. The IDF responded with a large-scale mobilization of its reserve forces, which paralysed Israel's economy.

May 21, 1967 Ben-Gurion summons Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin and accuses him of precipitating the crisis and dragging Israel into a dangerous war. On the following day, Rabin, under tremendous pressure, is incapacitated temporarily by nicotine poisoning, massive fatigue or a nervous breakdown.

May 23, 1967 Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser closes the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Egypt moves six divisions, about 130,000 soldiers, into Sinai. Negotiations with US to reopen the Straits of Tiran fail.

23 May 1967 The Israeli cabinet met and decided to launch a pre-emptive strike if the Straits of Tiran were not re-opened to Israeli shipping by 25 May. Following an approach from US Undersecretary of State Eugene Rostow to allow time for the negotiation of a non-violent solution Israel agreed to a delay of ten days to two weeks.

May 26, 1967 Speech by Gamal Nasser to Arab Trade Unionists Nasser claimed that Egypt was only looking for the right movement and the proper excuse to fight for the Palestinian cause.

http://www.mideastweb.org/nasser26may67.htm

Two Egyptian Air Force MiG 21s over flew the Israeli nuclear reactor in Dimona. Israel was unable to intercept them, and the over-flight caused quite a bit of concern. Needless to say, this rather explicit speech on the same day produced alarm in Israel.

MidEast Web

May 26, 1967 President Johnson reluctantly agrees to see Abba Eban. Tells him he is powerless to act to open straits of Tiran and requires more time (about two weeks) to assemble UN support for a regatta to open the straits. Warns Israel against unilateral action. Subsequent UN debate proves fruitless.

May 27, 1967 Nasser cancels a planned Egyptian attack on Israel (Operation fajr - Dawn), planned for following day, after it became obvious that the Israelis knew about the plan.

May 28, 1967 Israeli Levi Eshkol broadcasts a hesitant, stammering speech, further exacerbating pressure on him to make way for other leaders. Later it is claimed that the stammering was due to problems in reading the manuscript.

28 May Secretary McNamara said the Israelis think they can win in 3-4 days; but he thinks it would be longer--7 to 10 days.
US State Johnson Administration Volume XIX

May 29, 1967 Speech by Gamal Nasser to Egyptian National Assembly Members - Nasser explicitly threatened to destroy Israel: "...God will surely help and urge us to restore the situation to what it was in 1948....But now that the time has come - and I have already said in the past that we will decide the time and place and not allow them to decide - we must be ready for triumph and not for a recurrence of the 1948 comedies. "

May 30, 1967 Jordan signs a defence pact with Egypt, allows Egyptian command of Jordan Legion.

May Israel mobilizes 13 brigades on Syrian border. Nasser informs Robert Anderson who carried out diplomatic missions on behalf of President Lyndon B. Johnson saying he [Nasser] felt he had no choice but to mobilize and send troops to Sinai.

May 31, 1967 President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq stated "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map.

Jun 2, 1967 Moshe Dayan joins Israeli cabinet as Minister of Defence (the US assessment is that the appointment was hardly favourable to restraint). Unity government formed. Reservists released for furlough before outbreak of the war.

June 5 - The Six-Day War begins when Israel stages simultaneous air strikes that destroy the air forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, leaving their ground forces at the mercy of the Israeli air force. By June 11 Israel gains control of the Sinai, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank.

Looks like Israel initiated the 67 War of Choice.

And Israel carried out a second ethnic cleansing in an effort to create the Jewish State of Eretz Israel.

Israel wants acquiescence for the creation of Greater Israel. Territorial expansion by war is not nor never has been negotiation. May I remind you:-

so Israel and the Arabs have a long way to go.[/quote]

Amended August 1993.

"A. The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by cancelling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993.

Looks like Israel has the furthest to go.