Resolution 242; What it REALLY means - Page 7

concheet · #61 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 08:24 PM

.... Shabtai Rosenne, former Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and member of the UN's International Law Commission, notes that:

It is an historical fact, which nobody has ever attempted to deny, that the negotiations between the members of the Security Council, and with the other interested parties, which preceded the adoption of that resolution, were conducted on the basis of English texts, ultimately consolidated in Security Council document S/8247. [...] Many experts in the French language, including academics with no political axe to grind, have advised that the French translation is an accurate and idiomatic rendering of the original English text, and possibly even the only acceptable rendering into French."[...] "[o]n the question of concordance, the French representative [to the 1379th meeting of the Security Council on November 16, 1967] was explicit in stating that the French text was "identical" with the English text.[21]

He also states:

It is known from an outside source that the sponsors resisted all attempts to insert words such as "all" or "the" in the text of this phrase in the English text of the resolution, and it will not be overlooked that when that very word "all" erroneously crept into the Spanish translation of the draft, it was subsequently removed.[22]

Only English and French were the Security Council's working languages (Arabic, Russian, Spanish and Chinese were official but not the working languages).

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America argues the practice at the UN is that the binding version of any resolution is the one voted upon. In the case of 242 that version was in English, so they assert the English version the only binding one.[23] Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of Diplomacy points out that this was indeed the position held by the United States and United Kingdom:

... both the British and the Americans pointed out that 242 was a British resolution; therefore, the English language text was authoritative and would prevail in any dispute over interpretation.[24]

The French representative to the Security Council, in the debate immediately after the vote, asserted:

the French text, which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories" We were likewise gratified to hear the United Kingdom representative stress the link between this paragraph of his resolution and the principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by force....[25]

Opponents of the "all territories" reading remind that the UN Security Council declined to adopt a draft resolution including the definite article way prior to the adoption of Resolution 242. They argue that, in interpreting a resolution of an international organization, one must look to the process of the negotiation and adoption of the text. This would make the text in English, the language of the discussion, take precedence.

21. ^ Rosenne, Shabtai. On Multi-Lingual Interpretation -UN Security Council Res 242, Israel Law Review, Vol. 6, 1971; reprinted in The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Vol. II: Readings, ed. John Norton Moore (Princeton University Press, 1974).
22. ^ Rosenne cites Arthur Lall, The U.N. and the Middle East Crisis (196

at 253-4. Rosenne states "Ambassador Lall had earlier been Deputy Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, and although in 1967 he held a teaching post at Columbia University, in the City of New York, he is widely regarded as reflecting the views of the Indian delegation, which at that time was a member of the Security Council."
23. ^ Link to article on CAMERA website
24. ^ David A. Korn, "The Making of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242" (Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992), pg. 12.
25. ^ UN Transcription of session referring to Chapter VI prior to the introduction of the Resolution, paragraph 111

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

Also from the same link

......

The Common Law legal principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius (which, for Common Law jurisdictions such as the UK and USA, states that the terms excluded from a law must be considered as excluded intentionally) is cited by some[citation needed] as operating against an "all territories" reading. Arab states specifically requested that the resolution be changed to read "all territories" instead of "territories." Their request was discussed by the UN Security Council. However, it was rejected. The Security Council actively chose to reject writing "all territories" and instead wrote "territories." And it was this version, without "all" that was passed. Others insist that the legal principle in question cannot operate so as to create ambiguity.

Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:

It was from occupied territories that the [r]esolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact...East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I[t] was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[26]

Lord Caradon also maintains,

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.[27]

27. (MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 197

They understood what they were voting on. And they did not say ALL the territories DELIBERATELY.

ashleykennedy · #62 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss alla";p=&quot

ashley:

Quote:

Speaker after speaker actually, if you bother to read the debate verbatim records (which I just have been doing for the last few hours), made it abundantly clear that Israel was to be forced back to the pre June 1967 Armistice Demarcation Lines. The opposite of that which Miss Halla purports

.

then ashley provides us his "list"

A.A. GROMYKO Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Mr. PACHACHI (Iraq)
Mr. Mamadou Boucabar KANTE (Mali)
Mr. KUZENETSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
Mr. MAKONNEN (Ethiopia)

not one authored any part of 242, so they are not attesting to its meaning but their political stance concerning where israel should withdraw to. ashley would have been hard put to find greater antisemitics than that group which would explain their position. but they have a right to whatever position they want, but they do not have the right to explain what 242 meant. for that we must go to the authors:

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).

You'll notice Miss Halla that speaker after speaker said Israel MUST go back to the 67 line. Which is what the list of speakers was for.

A.A. GROMYKO Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Mr. PACHACHI (Iraq)
Mr. Mamadou Boucabar KANTE (Mali)
Mr. KUZENETSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
Mr. MAKONNEN (Ethiopia)

See

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashleykennedy";p=&quot

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."

Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali all agree with the line taken by the Indian representative.

Because all this is available:-
31/12/1967 E.68.I.1Yearbook of the United Nations 1967 (excerpts) 19/12/1967 A/RES/2341(XXII) (A+B)Palestine refugees/UNRWA reports - GA resolutions
18/12/1967 A/RES/2330(XXII)Definition of aggression - GA resolution 13/12/1967 A/RES/2304(XXII)UNEF financing - GA resolution #
08/12/1967 S/8289Mideast situation/Suez Canal zone observers - SecCo President statement
23/11/1967 S/8259 Designation of Special Representative under S/RES/242 (Jarring) - SecGen note
22/11/1967 S/PV.1382 Mideast situation - SecCo debate, vote (S/RES/242) - Verbatim record
22/11/1967 S/RES/242 (1967) Mideast situation - Acquisition of territory by war/ Withdrawal of Israel/ Refugee problem/ Special Representative - SecCo resolution
22/11/1967 Mideast situation - SecCo debate, voting (S/RES/242) - Photo 20/11/1967 S/8253Mideast situation - SecCo draft resolution (USSR draft) 20/11/1967 S/PV.1381Mideast situation - SecCo debate - Verbatim record 17/11/1967 S/PV.1380Mideast situation - SecCo debate - Verbatim record 16/11/1967 S/8247Mideast situation - UK - SecCo draft resolution 16/11/1967 S/PV.1379Mideast situation - SecCo debate - Verbatim record 15/11/1967 S/PV.1377Mideast situation - SecCo debate - Verbatim record 10/11/1967 S/8236Mideast situation/Suez Canal sector observers - USSR - SecCo draft resolution
07/11/1967 S/8227Mideast situation - India, Mali, Nigeria - SecCo draft resolution
07/11/1967 S/8229Mideast situation - United States - SecCo draft resolution 25/10/1967 S/RES/240 (1967)Mideast situation/Recent military activities - Violations of cease-fire condemned/ UNTSO cooperation - SecCo resolution 30/09/1967 A/6846UNCCP - 25th progress report
18/09/1967 A/PV.15591967 war - GA 5th emergency special session debate, vote, closure - Verbatim record
18/09/1967 A/RES/2257 (ES-V) Mideast situation/Agenda item referred to GA regular session - GA 5th ESS resolution
15/09/1967 A/6797* Protection of civilians/Internally displaced persons - Gussing mission report, SecGen report under A/RES/2252 (ES-V) and S/RES/237 (1967)

Lord Caradon during the debate:-

Quote:

37. The Arab countries insist that we must direct our special attention to the recovery and restoration of their territories. The issue of withdrawal is to them of top priority. The Arabs want not charity but justice. They seek a just settlement to end the long and bitter suffering of the refugees. There is a recognition on all sides that a new, comprehensive, imaginative plan, as we have advocated, to deal with this desperately urgent problem is essential.

38. The Israelis tell us that withdrawal must never be to the old precarious truce. It must be to a permanent peace to secure boundaries, to a new era of freedom from the use or the threat or the fear of hostility and force.

39. Both are right. The aims of the two sides do not conflict. They converge. They supplement and they support each other. To imagine that one can be secured without the other is a delusion. They are of equal validity and equal necessity. The recent consultations which have been going forward so energetically and continuously strongly reinforce my conviction that we in this Council now have a supreme opportunity to serve the interests of all those concerned. Every day it is more clear what should be done. Every day it is more apparent that we are not dealing with conflicting interests but with complementary interests. Justice and peace are not in conflict; they are as inseparable as they are indispensable. One must go hand in hand with the other.

15/11/1967 S/PV.1377

A.A. GROMYKO Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Quote:

LETTER DATED 13 JUNE 1967 FROM THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE
UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Despite the Security Council's decisions concerning the cessation of hostilities between Israel and the Arab States, Israel is continuing its piratical aggression. In flagrant defiance of the Security Council demands for a cease-fire adopted on 6, 7 and 9 June, Israel has seized further territories belonging to the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Syria.

UN DOCUMENT A/6717

Mr. PACHACHI (Iraq)

Quote:

23. What kind of negotiations can be held when territories of Member States are under military occupation? It must be very clear that the United Nations itself has to play the major role in this crisis. And, as the Secretary-General very rightly said in his press conference on Saturday, 16 September, it would not be realistic to do otherwise, and the United Nations indeed has an important and necessary role. It is our hope that that role will be played in a way consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and with the principles of equity and justice.

A/PV. 1559 of 18 September 1967

Mr. Mamadou Boucabar KANTE (Mali)

Quote:

43. The immediate stumbling block in the crisis is the withdrawal of the Israel forces from the territories of the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Syria which they occupied following the aggression of 5 June 1967. Their withdrawal is a prerequisite for any political solution to the crisis. The first task of the Council is therefore to secure, in application of the provisions of the Charter, the withdrawal of the Israel forces to the positions they held before the aggression.

S/PV.1379 of 16 Nov 1967

Mr. KUZENETSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)

Quote:

During Security Council debates, the Soviet delegation has repeatedly drawn attention of all members of the Security Council to the fact that the key question, the crux of the problem in the Middle East is the question of the withdrawal of Israel troops from all the Arab territories they have occupied, i.e., the question of removing the main consequence of, the Israel aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan in June 1967. The statements, of a number of Council members have shown that this view is widely shared in the Security Council. It cannot be denied that only the withdrawal of the aggressor's troops from the territories he has seized, from all the territories he has seized, can pave the way for a lasting and just peace in the Middle East. Any other assertion would be opposed to the most elementary rules governing relations among States, rules which must be respected if there is to be peace in the world. The aggressor has come into foreign lands; the aggressor must leave those lands. That is just as incontestable as the fact that someone who has taken something which does not belong to him must give it back.

S?PV> 1381 of 20 November 1967

Mr. MAKONNEN (Ethiopia)

Quote:

33. With regard to the principles that need to be affirmed, we deem it most essential that due emphasis be put on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and hence on the imperative requirement that all Israel armed forces be withdrawn from the territories occupied as a result Of military conflict, and likewise on the need to ensure conditions of permanent peace in which all States in the area can live in security free from threats or acts of force. It follows from this that we seek the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and consider that there should be, mutual respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and, political independence of all States in the area.

S/PV. 1382 of 22 November 1967

Now don't you love a miss quote:-

Why did Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov say 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)

Was it because he felt that the inclusion of "the" and "all" would have been stronger. The word "the" and "all" was not included because of US and UK 10 members in the debate said "all" and "the" was implicit as the principle of the resolution. Will we ever know:-

S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67 just doesn't seem to exist (and the name KUZENETSOV is spelt incorrectly in Abu's evidence)?

So if you could put a link up to the relevant document it would be appreciated, to check on that little thing called context.

Lastly on veracity of the Christians for Israel site

From the actual Document:-

Quote:

66. The sponsors of draft resolution S/8227 and the sponsor of draft resolution S/8229 have indicated that at this stage they will not press for a vote on their texts. It is also my understanding that the representative of the Soviet Union will not press for a vote, at this stage, on the draft resolution he submitted in document S/8236.

S/PV. 1382 of 22 November 1967

From Christians for Israel:-

Quote:

D. Brazil

- Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:

"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." (S/PV. 1382, p. 66, 22.11.67)

Christian action for israel

Abu's site used as evidence seems to have got p.66 a bit mixed up.

so when Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, states:-

Quote:

Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was NOT to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' [1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..."SC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17).

Speaker after speaker actually, if you bother to read the debate verbatim records (which I just have been doing for the last few hours), made it abundantly clear that Israel was to be forced back to the pre June 1967 Armistice Demarcation Lines. The opposite of that which Abu purports.

That is why, when it was brought up at the start of the debate it was discarded.

The partial list was only some of those that said that Israel had to go back to the pre June 1967 line. Only the US, Israel and UK did not say that Israel had to go back all the others said Israel had to go back no matter what the authors thought about the subject or not. Those that debated the resolution said Israel had to go back to the 67 border.

halla · #63 (**permalink**) 12-14-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

You'll notice Miss Halla that speaker after speaker said Israel MUST go back to the 67 line. Which is what the list of speakers was for.

ashley, if i were to tell you as author of what you said what you really meant to say you would object, thus ashley, sweetness, one must defer to the authors of 242 and not to political hacks representing dying regimes such as the dead Soviet Union and representatives dyfunctional islamic countries.

to this:

" ... 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)

Quote:

Was it because he felt that the inclusion of "the" and "all" would have been stronger. The word "the" and "all" was not included because of US and UK 10 members in the debate said "all" and "the" was implicit as the principle of the resolution. Will we ever know:-

wrong ashley: the soviet argued for the inclusion of "all" but lost.

Quote:

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).

once again for ashley. when you defer to me for what you say and the meaning of what you say then perhaps you have an argument for others determining what the authors of 242 said and meant to say. until you have determined that only i know what you said and meant to say you speak in ignorance of the true meaning of 242.

ashleykennedy · #64 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

You'll notice Miss Halla that speaker after speaker said Israel MUST go back to the 67 line. Which is what the list of speakers was for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

ashley, if i were to tell you as author of what you said what you really meant to say you would object, thus ashley, sweetness, one must defer to the authors of 242 and not to political hacks representing dying regimes such as the dead Soviet Union and representatives dysfunctional Islamic countries.

Halla during a discussion what the author intended or not is completely inconsequential. What is raised in the discussion matters and what is written in the final resolution.

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."

UN Docs Verbatim Records S/PV 1382

Quote:

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,

SC Resolution 242
to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

" ... 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)

One little problem there as 1973 doesn't exist.

But I'll answer any way.

Secure boundaries for all means a land bridge from the West bank to Haifa. With Haifa as a secure port for the Palestinians. You miss out that the secure and recognised borders was for all not just Israel.

Quote:

Was it because he felt that the inclusion of "the" and "all" would have been stronger. The word "the" and "all" was not included because of US and UK 10 members in the debate said "all" and "the" was implicit as the principle of the resolution. Will we ever know:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

wrong Ashley: the soviet argued for the inclusion of "all" but lost.

Halla because "all" and "the" was implied, "all" and "the" did not need to be included.

Quote:

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,

SC Resolution 242

And is stated categorically in the preamble.

Quote:

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).

once again for ashley. when you defer to me for what you say and the meaning of what you say then perhaps you have an argument for others determining what the authors of 242 said and meant to say. until you have determined that only i know what you said and meant to say you speak in ignorance of the true meaning of 242.[/quote]

that is nought but a red herring.

The representative for India stated to the Security Council during the discussion:-

"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."

UN Docs Verbatim Records S/PV 1382

No equivocating there at all, straight out and says it, not only says it once but repeats it for the hard of thinking.

ashleykennedy · #65 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

You'll notice Miss Halla that speaker after speaker said Israel MUST go back to the 67 line. Which is what the list of speakers was for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

ashley, if i were to tell you as author of what you said what you really meant to say you would object, thus ashley, sweetness, one must defer to the authors of 242 and not to political hacks representing dying regimes such as the dead Soviet Union and representatives dysfunctional Islamic countries.

Halla during a discussion what the author intended or not is completely inconsequential. What is raised in the discussion matters and what is written in the final resolution.

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."

UN Docs Verbatim Records S/PV 1382

Quote:

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,

SC Resolution 242
to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

" ... 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)

One little problem there as 1973 doesn't exist.

But I'll answer any way.

Secure boundaries for all means a land bridge from the West bank to Haifa. With Haifa as a secure port for the Palestinians. You miss out that the secure and recognised borders was for all not just Israel.

Quote:

Was it because he felt that the inclusion of "the" and "all" would have been stronger. The word "the" and "all" was not included because of US and UK 10 members in the debate said "all" and "the" was implicit as the principle of the resolution. Will we ever know:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

wrong Ashley: the soviet argued for the inclusion of "all" but lost.

Halla because "all" and "the" was implied, "all" and "the" did not need to be included.

Quote:

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,

SC Resolution 242

And is stated categorically in the preamble.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

once again for ashley. when you defer to me for what you say and the meaning of what you say then perhaps you have an argument for others determining what the authors of 242 said and meant to say. until you have determined that only i know what you said and meant to say you speak in ignorance of the true meaning of 242.

that is nought but a red herring.

The representative for India stated to the Security Council during the discussion:-

"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."

UN Docs Verbatim Records S/PV 1382

No equivocating there at all, straight out and says it, not only says it once but repeats it for the hard of thinking.

halla · #66 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Halla during a discussion what the author intended or not is completely inconsequential. What is raised in the discussion matters and what is written in the final resolution.

wrong ashley, 242 was supplemented explanatory discourse by the authors just so that it would not be buffeted by political winds in the malodorous chambers of the great UN.

what you are saying it analogous to saying the koran is a stand alone document when in fact it meaning is found in the hadiths.

Quote:

Quote:

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,

indeed, the reason for those words was because of the belligerency of the arab toward israel with intent of destroying israel.

to continue with ashley's vargaries:

Quote:

halla wrote (View Post):
" ... 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)

One little problem there as 1973 doesn't exist.

what you are saying is that israel doesn't have established borders and indeed that is true. that will come when israel/palestinians make final peace accommodations with fixed borders and peace.

since israel doesn't have established borders the land israel came in control of cannot be considered as an "acquisition of territory by war" because the entity that controlled it controlled it illegally. i am referring here to egypt/jordan and gaza/west bank. egypt and jordan acquired by the war of '48 land that was to be negotiated between israel and the "palestinians". egypt and jordan contained the "palestinians" in refugee camps and not coherent "palestinian" polity existed to assume responsibility. even today there doesn't exist a coherent "palestinian" polity with which israel can negotiate final status of peace with established borders.

if ashley can prove that the palestinians were able to govern for themselves while being contained in the refugee camps by the jordanians and egyptians her argument might be strengthened. but then ashley would have to explain the need for the racist palestinian charter which got its first expression in July 1-17, 1968, well after israel had removed the illegal jordanians and egyptians from the palestinian mandate.

to this ashley excerpt:

Was it because he felt that the inclusion of "the" and "all" would have been

Quote:

stronger. The word "the" and "all" was not included because of US and UK 10 members in the debate said "all" and "the" was implicit as the principle of the resolution. Will we ever know:-

yes we already know:

Quote:

Israeli Rights in the Territories
Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles -- Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This deliberate language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. For example, the Soviet Union attempted to introduce the word "all" before the word "territories" in the British draft resolution that became Resolution 242. Lord Caradon, the British UN ambassador, resisted these efforts.10 Since the Soviets tried to add the language of full withdrawal but failed, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the withdrawal clause contained in Resolution 242, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council.

Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."11 Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart.

Actually, the last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The members of the League of Nations did not create the rights of the Jewish people, but rather recognized a pre-existing right, that had been expressed by the 2,000-year-old quest of the Jewish people to re-establish their homeland.

Moreover, Israel's rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Article 80 established that nothing in the UN Charter should be "construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments." These rights were unaffected by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947 -- the Partition Plan -- which was a non-binding recommendation that was rejected, in any case, by the Palestinians and the Arab states.

Given these fundamental sources of international legality, Israel possesses legal rights with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip that appear to be ignored by those international observers who repeat the term "occupied territories" without any awareness of Israeli territorial claims. Even if Israel only seeks "secure boundaries" that cover part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, there is a world of difference between a situation in which Israel approaches the international community as a "foreign occupier" with no territorial rights, and one in which Israel has strong historical rights to the land that were recognized by the main bodies serving as the source of international legitimacy in the previous century.

dore gold

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

one always has to defer to the author of the words because only the author knows what the author said, that is the reason for explanatory notes.

thus making this statement:

Quote:

You Believe what you want
I'll believe what I Know ....Kevin Spacey "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil"

defined ignorance

ashleykennedy · #67 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashleykennedy";p=&quot

Halla during a discussion what the author intended or not is completely inconsequential. What is raised in the discussion matters and what is written in the final resolution.

[quote="halla";p="421826"]wrong ashley, 242 was supplemented explanatory discourse by the authors just so that it would not be buffeted by political winds in the malodorous chambers of the great UN.

what you are saying it analogous to saying the koran is a stand alone document when in fact it meaning is found in the hadiths.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashleykennedy";p=&quot

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,

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

indeed, the reason for those words was because of the belligerency of the Arab toward Israel with intent of destroying Israel.

So your understanding of the English language brings you to the conclusion that “every state” is translated as “Israel only”?

Quote:

5. That this session may prove to be crucial and a turning point has been expressed by many representatives in the Council, which has had "The Palestine question" on its agenda for the last twenty years; whether it may be so depends basically on the safeguarding of Arab rights, so far ignored and disregarded.

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

Oh dear halla you are wrong again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

to continue with Ashley’s vargaries:

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

halla wrote (View Post):

Still not able to use the quote button then halla?

Quote:

Originally Posted by S/PV. 1373

" ... 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)

One little problem there as 1373 doesn't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

what you are saying is that Israel doesn't have established borders and indeed that is true. that will come when Israel/Palestinians make final peace accommodations with fixed borders and peace.

No just your quote of S/PV 1373 does not exist, this is the third time of telling. Your quote does not exist.

That will never come about. Israel is after peace first to continue its ‘expansionist programme without any opposition. The Palestinians are after their private property back and an end to theft before contemplating any peace. That means there will be no accommodation of Israeli policies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

since Israel doesn't have established borders the land Israel came in control of cannot be considered as an "acquisition of territory by war" because the entity that controlled it controlled it illegally. I am referring here to Egypt/Jordan and Gaza/west bank. Egypt and Jordan acquired by the war of '48 land that was to be negotiated between Israel and the "Palestinians".

Israel has never declared any border at any time in its history. The annexation by Jordan of the West bank was never accepted and was an occupation. Egypt never tried to annex Gaza and it was legally an occupation

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

Egypt and Jordan contained the "Palestinians" in refugee camps and no coherent "Palestinian" polity existed to assume responsibility. Even today there doesn't exist a coherent "Palestinian" polity with which Israel can negotiate final status of peace with established borders.

That is there is no coherent Palestinian polity that Israel is willing to negotiate with. A Palestinian polity has been in existence for quite a while. But as in the 60’s 70’s and 80’s where Israel wasted over 40 years ignoring the facts on the ground and Israel is continuing that policy today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

If Ashley can prove that the Palestinians were able to govern for themselves while being contained in the refugee camps by the Jordanians and Egyptians his argument might be strengthened. But then Ashley would have to explain the need for the racist Palestinian charter which got its first expression in July 1-17, 1968,

That has been shown by the PA in the west bank areas that have been handed over.

And the Palestinian Charter was amended. This just leaves the racist charters of the Israeli political parties to amend.

And can Israel prove that Israel can govern itself? So far the Israeli experiment has been a failure. Israel has been unable to act like a Democracy, Israel has been unable to stay within a border, and Israel has a racist apartheid system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

well after Israel had removed the illegal Jordanians and Egyptians from the Palestinian mandate.

And now the racist illegal (by Israeli law) Israelis have to go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

to this ashley excerpt:

[quote="ashleykennedy";p="421715"]Was it because he felt that the inclusion of "the" and "all" would have been

Quote:

stronger. The word "the" and "all" was not included because of US and UK and 10 members in the debate said "all" and "the" was implicit as the principle of the resolution. Will we ever know:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

yes we already know:

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,

To right we do. Some people read the whole document and not just one line.

Had “all” and “the” been used then Israel would have to give up western Galilee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halla";p=&quot

Quote:

Israeli Rights in the Territories
Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles -- Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This deliberate language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. For example, the Soviet Union attempted to introduce the word "all" before the word "territories" in the British draft resolution that became Resolution 242. Lord Caradon, the British UN ambassador, resisted these efforts.10 Since the Soviets tried to add the language of full withdrawal but failed, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the withdrawal clause contained in Resolution 242, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council.

Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."11 Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart.

Actually, the last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The members of the League of Nations did not create the rights of the Jewish people, but rather recognized a pre-existing right, that had been expressed by the 2,000-year-old quest of the Jewish people to re-establish their homeland.

Moreover, Israel's rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Article 80 established that nothing in the UN Charter should be "construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments." These rights were unaffected by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947 -- the Partition Plan -- which was a non-binding recommendation that was rejected, in any case, by the Palestinians and the Arab states.

Given these fundamental sources of international legality, Israel possesses legal rights with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip that appear to be ignored by those international observers who repeat the term "occupied territories" without any awareness of Israeli territorial claims. Even if Israel only seeks "secure boundaries" that cover part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, there is a world of difference between a situation in which Israel approaches the international community as a "foreign occupier" with no territorial rights, and one in which Israel has strong historical rights to the land that were recognized by the main bodies serving as the source of international legitimacy in the previous century.

dore gold

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

Oh goody a right based on a historical claim of a city state that existed some 2,500 years ago. He’d be laughed at in a kindergarten coming out with that sort of cr*p.

Quote: