Resolution 242; What it REALLY means

given that the world "all" was introduced and rejected then the implications that would have followed with its introduction were also rejected. thus israel has a reasonable argument that it would withdraw to secure boundaries.

it also needs to be understood that there are consequences to aggressive belligerency. what ashkey wants if for israel to withdraw to the same vulnerable boundaries that led to the arab aggression in the first place. ashley wants no consequences for aggression hoping that one day a vulnerable israel would indeed be overrun by the arab empire and forgotten. bad ashley!

 

Given the "all" would have meant that Israel had to go back to the 1947 Partition borders.

As the preamble says:-

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,

No getting round that. Given that these were the words in the UN resolution and they were voted on and accepted.

 

A few comments:
1) It seems we have another contributor who maintains that in a voting system it is more important what the author of the resolution says he/she meant, than what the entities voting said that they understood and why they voted the way they did. I reject completely the emphasis on the author's explanation. Why? Quite simple - he was not voting. He had no say. The members voted a certain way given a certain understanding, and it is ONLY this understanding that has any weight in terms of the vote outcome.

2) Further to interpretations of UN 242 - McHugo's analysis quoted by Ashley is classic. It shows just how empty the arguments are that there are territories from which Israel need not withdraw from, just like it is so stupid to maintain that some dogs need not be on leads.

3) Next, exactly as Lord Caradon's son explained, how can ANY other interpretation be seriously offered given the preamble of UNSC 242 on "the inadmissability of acquisition of territory by war". How can anything that follows from this basis be turned to mean that ... but, there is some ground for which acquisition by war IS admissable. That is such empty debate.

And finally, there are many in this world, myself included who have noticed what Lord Caradan's son observed, namely that Israel can be in blatant defiance of the UNSC and nothing happens, but let another country dare to even hesitate in its compliance and without further UN approval, it is attacked.

The pattern (or game) is abundantly clear. And I don't like it one bit. I am no longer a friend or supporter of those who do. That means that I no longer respect nor trust the US or Israel as I did even 6 years ago.

So well done US, you have turned from one of the most respected to one of the least respected countires in the world. And we laugh at the right wing, the Zionists, and the religious fundamentalists, who continue to serve up these jaded, illogical, tired, and thoroughly debunked myths in defence of half a century of Zionist defiance of world opinion and UN resolutions.

And then they have the nerve to call Ashley dense because she does not agree that the intention of an author changes the voting of the UNSC members. But why am I not surprised?

 

abu-afak deals with those issues in the beginning of this thread. The voters clearly understood what they were voting on:

 

They clearly knew what the were voting on.

 

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:-

15/11/1967 S/PV.1377

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

UN DOCUMENT A/6717

Mr. PACHACHI (Iraq)

A/PV. 1559 of 18 September 1967

Mr. Mamadou Boucabar KANTE (Mali)

S/PV.1379 of 16 Nov 1967

Mr. KUZENETSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)

S?PV> 1381 of 20 November 1967

Mr. MAKONNEN (Ethiopia)

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:-

S/PV. 1382 of 22 November 1967

From Christians for Israel:-

Christian action for israel

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

so when Abu states:-

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.

 

ashley:

.

then ashley provides us her "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).

 

THE GOLAN HEIGHTS AND THE FACTS - UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 - A WITHDRAWAL TO THE 1949/1967 LINES?

The following text was published on April 4, 2000 - as a Full Page Ad - by The Ariel Center For Policy Research in the Israeli daily, Ha'aretz.
FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON:

Israel should not have to withdraw its forces to the pre-June 5 armistice lines. "This is not a prescription for peace, but for a renewal of hostilities." (Address, June 19, 1967). "It is clear however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders..." (Address, Sept. 10, 196.

FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN:
"In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again." (Address to the Nation, September 1, 1982).

FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE SCHULTZ:
"Israel will never negotiate from, or return to, the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders." (Address to the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, Sept. 16, 198.

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 27-2.

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).

WHAT IS THE STANCE OF SYRIA AND OTHER ARAB STATES ON 242?
Syria rejected UNSC Resolution 242 because it did not require Israel to withdraw to the 1949/1967 cease fire Lines. Syria was joined by the other Arab States, claiming that the 1949/1967 Lines were not final borders.
IS THE EVACUATION OF SINAI A PRECEDENT FOR THE GOLAN HEIGHTS?
Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State: "...The Egyptian model fits neither the Jordanian nor the Syrian case...Former Secretary of Defense McNamara has said that if he were the Israel's Minister of Defense, he would never agree to giving up the Golan Heights...UNSC 242 authorizes the parties to make whatever territorial changes the situation requires - it does not require the Israelis to transfer to the Arabs all, most, or indeed any of the occupied territories. The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty awards [to the Arabs] more than 90 percent of the territory Israel captured in the Six Day War...[242] permits a transfer [of all the territories] if the parties accept it, but it does not require it..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, pp 18-19).
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).
THE ESSENCE OF UNSC RESOLUTION 242:
***242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines;
***242 mandates negotiation - give and take, rather than give and give;
***242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation;
***242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of 'secure and recognized borders', which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized.

 

http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242a.html

In fact it is easily ascertainable from reading your link here:
S/PV.1377-15 November 1967

 

united nations 242 was filed under chapter six of the united nations charter.


Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

 

.... 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_Nations_Security_Council_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.

 

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

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.

 

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)

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

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.

 

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

SC Resolution 242
to this:

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.

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

SC Resolution 242

And is stated categorically in the preamble.

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.

 

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

SC Resolution 242
to this:

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.

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

SC Resolution 242

And is stated categorically in the preamble.

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.

 

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:

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:

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

yes we already know:

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:

defined ignorance

 

ashley:

sweetness, i am using your argument and now you complain??

doesn't this belong to you:

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

and doesn't this belong to you:

coupled with your choice from india:

means that 242 (a chapter 6 resolution) is to be interpreted by individual parties thus leaving it to individual states to make of it what they wish.

now

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-7.htm

means that 242 needs to be negotiated between the principles, israel/palestinians and that other entites may hold opinions (india's "It is our understanding") but they have no weight.

parsing 242 means that it meaning what it means to those reading it since you have precluded the authors' clarifications of what seems to be ambiguous language.

to this:

you are acting beyond your intelligence ashley, thus you are acting in ignorance.

 

Remind me again what legal weight has a Security Council resolution?

No ambiguity in 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,"

So you do think that “every state” should be translated as “Israel only”?

Is English you 2nd language? You need to brush up on your translations a bit, well quite a lot really, better make that "you sound as thick as a brick in English". Maybe you should write in your own language and we'll try to get it translated.

Ms Halla you can use any argument you want.

But when your attempt to support Nazis to support Israel that takes the biscuit. Maybe you should ask Israel what they think of people that fought the Nazis in the second world war? I wonder If they'll say that Britain should have kept out of it and not bombed any main rail junctions such as Dresden and Koln. I wonder how many rail transports bombing main railway junctions into oblivion would have stopped? And you Halla condemn Britain for flattening cities with main rail junctions in support of Israeli policies.

May I most humbly suggest that you take a wee trip to any Holocaust museum and ask the curators about your little mind infarct.

 

ashley:

short answer, none.

we have chapter 6 and chapter 7 resolutions ashley. resoluton 242 was under chapter 6 thus;

CHAPTER VI
PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 33
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of a, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 34
The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 35
l. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.

2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.

3. The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.

Article 36
1. The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.

3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Article 37
1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

Article 38
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

there you have it ashley. glad to relieve you of your ignorance.

if you can read without your typical prejudice jaundices your view you will give fair play to the first article 33

now to this bit of duplicity:

ashley:

is it not your signature and is it not your signature for a reason, thus giving you ownership of what it means to you?? or is ms ashley being enigmatic?? i think not. i think ashley is shallow and in lacking depth is concerned with "keeping up appearances" very british.

ashley:

it's alright by me if ashley parrots that which she doesn't believe. i mean i mimic is a cheap knockoff of the real thing. you have been a bit lacking in context with your posting so perhaps your "signature" is merely an extention of that shallowness.

have you read the section on sympathetic magic in sir james frazer's "the golden bough"??

III. Sympathetic Magic

§ 1. The Principles of Magic

IF we analyse the principles of thought on which magic is based, they will probably be found to resolve themselves into two: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed. The former principle may be called the Law of Similarity, the latter the Law of Contact or Contagion. From the first of these principles, namely the Law of Similarity, the magician infers that he can produce any effect he desires merely by imitating it: from the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact, whether it formed part of his body or not. Charms based on the Law of Similarity may be called Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic. Charms based on the Law of Contact or Contagion may be called Contagious Magic. To denote the first of these branches of magic the term Homoeopathic is perhaps preferable, for the alternative term Imitative or Mimetic suggests, if it does not imply, a conscious agent who imitates, thereby limiting the scope of magic too narrowly. For the same principles which the magician applies in the practice of his art are implicitly believed by him to regulate the operations of inanimate nature; in other words, he tacitly assumes that the Laws of Similarity and Contact are of universal application and are not limited to human actions. In short, magic is a spurious system of natural law as well as a fallacious guide of conduct; it is a false science as well as an abortive art. Regarded as a system of natural law, that is, as a statement of the rules which determine the sequence of events throughout the world, it may be called Theoretical Magic: regarded as a set of precepts which human beings observe in order to compass their ends, it may be called Practical Magic. At the same time it is to be borne in mind that the primitive magician knows magic only on its practical side; he never analyses the mental processes on which his practice is based, never reflects on the abstract principles involved in his actions. With him, as with the vast majority of men, logic is implicit, not explicit: he reasons just as he digests his food in complete ignorance of the intellectual and physiological processes which are essential to the one operation and to the other. In short, to him magic is always an art, never a science; the very idea of science is lacking in his undeveloped mind. It is for the philosophic student to trace the train of thought which underlies the magician’s practice; to draw out the few simple threads of which the tangled skein is composed; to disengage the abstract principles from their concrete applications; in short, to discern the spurious science behind the bastard art. 1
If my analysis of the magician’s logic is correct, its two great principles turn out to be merely two different misapplications of the association of ideas. Homoeopathic magic is founded on the association of ideas by similarity: contagious magic is founded on the association of ideas by contiguity. Homoeopathic magic commits the mistake of assuming that things which resemble each other are the same: contagious magic commits the mistake of assuming that things which have once been in contact with each other are always in contact. But in practice the two branches are often combined; or, to be more exact, while homoeopathic or imitative magic may be practised by itself, contagious magic will generally be found to involve an application of the homoeopathic or imitative principle. Thus generally stated the two things may be a little difficult to grasp, but they will readily become intelligible when they are illustrated by particular examples. Both trains of thought are in fact extremely simple and elementary. It could hardly be otherwise, since they are familiar in the concrete, though certainly not in the abstract, to the crude intelligence not only of the savage, but of ignorant and dull-witted people everywhere. Both branches of magic, the homoeopathic and the contagious, may conveniently be comprehended under the general name of Sympathetic Magic, since both assume that things act on each other at a distance through a secret sympathy, the impulse being transmitted from one to the other by means of what we may conceive as a kind of invisible ether, not unlike that which is postulated by modern science for a precisely similar purpose, namely, to explain how things can physically affect each other through a space which appears to be empty. 2
It may be convenient to tabulate as follows the branches of magic according to the laws of thought which underlie them:

http://www.bartleby.com/196/5.html

 

now that 242 has been established as a nonlegal document the statements contained within are non legal making this:

none legal if originally sourced in 242.

it also conflicts with the definition of chapter 6 documents which first and foremost endorsed "negotiations" of grievances between conflicting parties.

CHAPTER VI
PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 33
1.

if the world of nations and religions were to endorse 242 there would scarcely be a nation or religion that had not sinned! surely the nations would not require of israel what they don't require of themselves and surely islam and christianity would not require of the jews that which they didn't require of themselves!

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

 

You go all the way in saying that the author knows what the Security council should mean in 242 and because of that Israel can invade anywhere it wants and now you say that the SC Res 242 is illegal.



You really are scraping the barrel Ms halla.

And if sourced in many other SC Resolutions???????? It's in 16 other Security council resolutions.

But since when has Israel kept to SC resolutions?

Not even from 1948

(1) To withdraw those of their forces which have advanced beyond the positions held on 14 October, the Acting Mediator being authorized to establish provisional lines beyond which no movement of troops shall take place;

S/RES/61 (194, S/1070 4 November 1948

So take it to the ICJ, but wait Israel doesn't like the ICJ it keeps on finding Israeli guilty.

All the Secular states and Atheists do.

Please Ms halla stop using drugs before trying to post next time.

 

ashley:

well ashley, the author wrote the resolution so i assume he would know what it meant.

israel never inititated wars so israel didn't invade. the arabs initiated the wars and israel has the right to retaliate. which means taking the battle to the arabs homeland. do you think that israel should only fight on its soil and destroy it land.?

also meathead, i didn't say 242 was illegal, i said it didn't have legal standing. if you had read the chapter 6 definition you would have read that, but no. ashley knows what ashley knows and ashley doesn't know what ashley doesn't know. the problem is ashley doesn't know the difference.

 

ashley:

The discussion of the members rather clarified all points. And if the Author had wished to clarify the points then the discussion would have been the place to do that. As he didn't do that then saying it later is akin to a juvenile saying Oh I wish I'd said that line, only they didn't.

Begin does not even agree with you on that point Hasbara.

The Partition plan had no legal standing, unfortunately when it was to go in front of the ICJ Israel jumped the gun. 242 got checked over by the ICJ and guess what apart from the ICJ having better legal knowledge than you, they say that 242 is legal.

Should I believe the ICJ with all the legal knowledge the ICJ has or should I believe Hasbara 2????

I'll go with the ICJ?

 

halla wrote (View Post):
means that 242 (a chapter 6 resolution) is to be interpreted by individual parties thus leaving it to individual states to make of it what they wish.

ashley's response was a lie:

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

Mr. PACHACHI (Iraq)

Mr. Mamadou Boucabar KANTE (Mali)

Mr. MAKONNEN (Ethiopia)

there are, eliminating redundancy, 3 given by you in this topic.

on the pro israel side we have

Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242

The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242]

also ashley would be more of an honest broker if what she states was supported by the organs she implied supported it. as an example.

ashley:

the document was not a court rendering.

thus 242 was not a legal document, but a chapter six resolution requiring negotiations between the parties. the fact that 242 was authored so that in explanatory notes that it was not required for israel to return to '67 borders has to be considered.

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

"

MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978

Last quote, Peace encylopedia