Wrong,again. 242 has no force of law and there is no rule in int'l law prohibiting the acquisition of territory in a defensive war, the circumstances under which Israel seized territory. Learn the subect matter and do not try to misinform everyone. Remember what happened to Pinochio, Nakaba. 242 is non-binding and sets out no law. Israel is forced to comply with nothing. Rubbish. Is it a matter of time before you become knowledgeable of the subect matter? Judging from the PMs I'm receiving, people are tired of your junk information
Territorial integrity cannot be altered by means of war . That includes pink war, green war, war started on Thursdays or even Israeli-manufactured war. Manufactured casus belli is synonymous with Zionist deceit. Resolution 242 restates the principle of territorial integrity. The Zionists are required to withdraw. Edwin; What happened to Pinochio, Edwin, and what has it got to do with me ?
Of course it can: In a defensive war. You are clueless. There is no law prohibiting acquisition of land in a defensive war, the circumstance under which Israel seized land. 242 is non-binding, a concept that eludes you. Zionists are not required to move one inch. Furthermore, the San Remo Resolution and Mandate For Palestine conferring sovereignty over Palestine to the Zionists are binding. Sorry. Pwned, Pinochio. How's the Nakaba?
Stay on-topic, which is that of UN Res. 242, of which you are thoroughly clueless, despite my authoritative instruction. If you wish to start a separate thread on Pinochio, that is your choice.
Not a fan of tripe, fresh or otherwise. Dry-aged filet mignon is more to my liking accompanied by a good bottle of red wine. Enjoy your tripe, Pino.
Going off topic is a breach of forum rules. If you wish to discuss Pinochio, do so elsewhere. In the meantime, read UN Res. 242, the topic at hand, so you won't misinform everyone about it with your rubbish-filled posts!
Well, as it was you who introduced the ' Pino ' and then you who swallowed it, I guess we can safely forget it. Resolution 242, as has been adequately covered by a range of intelligent members, emphasises territorial integrity and requires the Zionists to withdraw from occupied Palestine. That's as it should be and reflects the worth of the United Nations as steward of international law.
Forget what, Nakaba? Actually, just a small handful of intelligent members have weighed in on 242, myself and a couple others. Sadly, you are not one of them. Quite the opposite: Your posts are uniformly rubbish filled with misinformaton that helps nobody. To wit: 242 does not constitute law and does not require Israel to budge Remember what happened to Pinochio?.
Edwin; Yes, you swallowed him. Now you've regurgitated . Tell us then, Edwin, what happened to Pinochio .
I'm trying to ascertain if these names you repeatedly use are intended as flame-bait, Edwin. Fess up now, who is ' Nakaba ' and why do you use the name ' Pino ' ?
Better idea: "Ascertain" the distinction between a binding and non-binding document. 242 is the latter. Lesson for the day.
Oh dear. Another of the famous Zionist myths raises its head again. I refer to this bit from the above post: "Following the 6-day war of 1967, the Israel unity government declared on June 19, 1967 that it was ready to return the Golan Heights to Syria, Sinai to Egypt and most of the West Bank to Jordan, in return for peace treaties with its Arab neighbors," Let's do this slowly - I have learned with the Zionist myths on previous occasions that the apologists are so convinced that the myth is true, that they read the rebuttal, and then they instantaneously flush the logic from their systems. It seems they are totally incapable of absorbing myth-busters. I say this, not to be nasty Mr B, but because EXACTLY THIS TOPIC was discussed on this forum in the past 2 weeks. You can find the original myth and the rebuttal in the following: http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/18097-resolution-242-what-really-means-33.html#post1646117 http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/18097-resolution-242-what-really-means-35.html#post1653693 But we all know what Zionist myths are like, dont we Mr B. They are incapable of death given the willingness of the faithful to keep on repeating them like mantras. So I suppose that I have to do it all again *sigh*. Firstly a few questions, Mr B. 1) What does "the Israel unity government declared .." mean? How declared? By means of a letter or other document? By means of a statement in a public place, reported by the media? By stating it in words to an Arab leader? By instructing a foreign power to deliver it? 2) If documented, can you show me the text? If stated, can you show me the news report of what was said? 3) If stated/given to ... then to whom? I mean we all understand that a proposal that is never made is not a proposal, or do we ? Which Arab leader received this 'declaration'; this Israeli peace proposal? 4) When was it given .. I mean the date? Like in Handed by the Israeli UN Ambassador to the Egyptian on xxth of Month etc. In the first link above, Edwin30 provided proof that no such peace proposal was ever made. Mr B, can you see what Edwin couldnt, namely that his own source cut the legs right out from beneath the Zionist myth regarding Israel seeking peace. It was NEVER MADE PUBLIC. It might have been approved by the Knesset; it might have been communicated to 'the USA'; but it was never PROPOSED to any Arab. They were blissfully unaware of the 'declaration' as your source put it. In the second link above, I quote the Israeli Foreign Minister: Shlomo Ben-Ami write(s) in his book Scars of War; Wounds of Peace, p 125: No formal peace proposal was made, either directly or indirectly by Israel. The Americans, who were briefed of the Cabinets decision by [Abba] Eban, were not asked to convey it to Cairo and Damascus as official peace proposals, nor were they given indications that Israel expected a reply. Myth busted!! But wait, I hear it already rising from the ashes ...... it is after all a Myth.
The Arabs provoked the '67 War. Every historian agrees. 242 is non-binding. It forces Israel to do nothing. Get over it.
By the way, is this part of an automated reply, Edwin, sent irrespective of the content of the rebuttal? Rubbish. You have been pointed to the fact that both Rabin and Begin did not believe that Nasser wanted war. But then again they are not historians, only Prime Ministers of Israel. You have had the massive provocations by Israel pointed out to you - Samu: the Syrian water project; the well-documented Israeli provocations along Gaza (remember Dayan, Edwin), but you ignore them. All you do is repeat the Zionist mantra that Egypt did the provoking. In fact Egypt was remarkably restrained. [expects Edwin mantra to be returned with zero added value]. Rubbish. Moon is correct. UNSCR 338 made UNSCR 242 binding. Get over it. Drop the mantras, they are so boring and so *clang* empty.
338 is non-binding, too. Pick your sources more carefully. Why are you obsessing on a war that happened half a century ago? The Arabs started the war. Move on
Edwin, in the following two short statements, the true breadth of your knowledge about the Israeli-Arab conflict is exposed to full view. You have been arguing with The Judge and with Moon for weeks now on the topic of 242 being binding or not. You have used extremely condescending references to them. You have called yourself ever so knowledgeable, thanked yourself for the 'lessons' you gave them .... and you have been wrong all the way. I try to find the best sources that I possibly can, Edwin. Your style in contrast is to repeat *clang* mantras, not to provide support for your statements, and to pretend that you are having a constructive debate. And when do do provide a resource, you don't even read your own source, like the O'Brien quote where he ever so clearly writes that the Israelis never made their 1967 decision regarding a peace offer public. Yet you thundered on repeating the *clangs* for dozens of posts. So don't reproach me about resources. So, UNSCR 338 is non-binding, is it? RUBBISH!! Your non-existent resources are wrong ... again. Have a look what the distinctly pro-Israeli professor of law and ex-Undersecretary of State in 1967, Prof. Eugene W Rostow has to say on the matter: http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml "Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, sets out criteria for peace-making by the parties; Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally binding and orders the parties to carry out its terms forthwith. Unfortunately, confusion reigns, even in high places, about what those resolutions require." Do we need to move on to the ultimate expert in these matters, Rosalyn Higgins? Yeah, why not? "The Court, in dealing with the Security Council Resolutions on Namibia, clearly regarded Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII as lex specialis while Article 24 contained the lex generalis. Noting that Article 25 was placed not in Chapter VII, but next to Article 24, the Court asserted that resolutions validly adopted under Article 24 were binding on the membership as a whole. This writer believes that a reading of the Charter, its trauvaux and the limited subsequent practice, testify to the correctness of this conclusion." Want the opinions of the ICJ? Nah, no need. I will keep that in my back pocket. After some responses far less weighty than that you often comment "Pwned!!" I won't. Because, Pumpkin, I needed to set the scene for the next assault on the Myths, namely 1967, which I have only just started. It set the scene for 1967, which was the 'unfinished business' (Dayan). And that later consequence is without a doubt the single most important cause of the Palestinian conflict over the past 20 years, the greatest single stumbling block to peace, and the main reason for 9/11, as Osama so clearly spelled out this past week. If none of this matters to you, then you might be justified in querying my 'obsession'.
You're asking people to give you the titles of books so you can become knowledgeable of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now, when can we expect one of those books to be cracked open? LOL UN Res. 242 is non-binding. UN Res. 338 was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, therefore, it's non-binding. Furthermore, ICJ rulings are non-binding. Your posts are utterly embarrassing. If you need to know anything, come to me.
Keep it up Ed. You show your inability to comprehend, your *clang* responses, your inflated ego and your lack of ability to respond to logic more and more each day. I am a giver Ed. Resolutions dont have to be adopted under Chapter VII in order to be binding. The subtleties just keep on passing you by, don't they. Read the pro-Israeli Rostow. Oh I forgot. You can't.
Absolutely incorrect. Only Chapter VII UN resolutions are binding. Read, learn... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution Never contradict me. Now, among the books you asked people to recommend in order to become knowledgeable about the Middle East, I recommend a few good books on international law. Actually, I already gave you the titles of books on int'l law. Moral of the story: Post less. Read more.
