|
Posts:
252
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
(1 of 35)
Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Nov 25, 2005 9:56 AM
|
(time again for a primer re the UN discussion)
THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242
"The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242], tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change...Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.' When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution [calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines] but it was Not a viable alternative to the UK text...Members [of the UN Security Council] voted and adopted the [UK drafted] resolution unanimously..." (UN Security Council Resolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28).
Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242: "...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is Lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, failed to command the requisite support..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973).
Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories...
Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' [1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17).
The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft, which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council. (American Society of International Law, 1970).
UNSC RESOLUTION AND ISRAEL'S DEFENSIBLE BORDERS:
A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of 'secure boundaries' for Israel. They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler.
The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.' (Prof. Ezra Zohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000).
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/242a.html
--
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20020517/cartoon20020517.gif
|
|
|
Posts:
252
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
(2 of 35)
Nov 25, 2005 9:58 AM
|
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, 1968).
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, 1988).
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.
(MBIG/abu note ... later/1973 accepting the incorrect 'French Translation'/Mistranslation that because of a quirk of language included the article 'the' that was specifically rejected in the Original negotiations and Final Draft
The Palestinians Also REJECTED Resolution 242 until 1988 and then tried the same revisionist trick as the Syrians.. as all the Arabs and most others now Try.)
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.
ex from:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242a.html //
Also
Lord Caradon, an [chief] author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):
"We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately..
We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever."
MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978
--
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20020517/cartoon20020517.gif
|
|
|
Posts:
252
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
(3 of 35)
Nov 25, 2005 9:59 AM
|
"Illegal" or "Disputed"?
"..Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:
Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"
Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did.
It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...
Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:
Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"
Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."...."
Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:
"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders.
The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and Not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will Not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)
Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):
"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."
Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law/Public Affairs, Yale University.. 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and Not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'.
Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines."
+ Many More at link below
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242b.html
--
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20020517/cartoon20020517.gif
--
Edited by abu afak at 01/06/2007 12:47 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
252
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
(4 of 35)
Dec 5, 2005 9:11 AM
|
"..THE PLO'S PHASED PLAN
Political Programme
Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council
Cairo, June 9, 1974
Text of the Phased Plan resolution:
The Palestinian National Council:
On the basis of the Palestinian National Charter and the Political Programme drawn up at the eleventh session, held from January 6-12, 1973; and from its belief that it is impossible for a permanent and just peace to be established in the area unless our Palestinian people recover all their national rights and, first and foremost, their rights to return and to self-determination on the whole of the soil of their homeland; and in the light of a study of the new political circumstances that have come into existence in the period between the Council's last and present sessions, resolves the following:
1. To reaffirm the Palestine Liberation Organization's previous attitude to Resolution 242, which Obliterates the national right of our people and deals with the cause of our people as a problem of refugees. The Council therefore refuses to have anything to do with this resolution at any level, Arab or international, including the Geneva Conference. ..."
http://www.iris.org.il/plophase.htm //
Enjoy the Rest as this short excerpt may be part of another longer post on that "Phased Plan".
--
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/cis/classrooms/asx/jbsa/bg.html
|
|
|
Posts:
252
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
Posts:
278
Registered:
12/7/05
|
|
(6 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Dec 28, 2005 12:39 AM
|
So not satisfied with the land it has, Israel wants even more land - the Golan (already annexed), the heights in the West Bank and no doubt East Jerusalem. What about Palastinian security? the right of Palastinians to live in a country not within Israeli artillery range or no more than 10 miles wide at its narrowest? Unfortunately this seems to be the type of one-sided post that only considers Israel's rights.
One simple question, do the Palastinians have rights too?
|
|
|
Posts:
252
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
(7 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Dec 28, 2005 2:04 PM
|
A "One-sided Post" ?
Israel was perfectly content with it's borders until 1967, when it became clear the Arabs weren't after yet another attempt to wipe out the Jews and the New and narrow state.
There were no "Palestinians" then and no "Rights".
From 1948 to 1967 Jordan ruled and ANNEXED the West Bank and Egypt "Occupied" Gaza .. without any UN Resolutions, and 'palestinians' were "Jews".
Sorry buddy .. there aren't any do overs and continued free shots in War.
Aggressors have often lost territory.
Check a World political map in 1900 and again in 2000.
At this point I don't thing a few percent buffer is unreasonable (Israel having already returned the Sinai and now Gaza, and will give 95% of the WB), and the Palestinians (and the Syrian Shooting Gallery called Golan) will just have to live without a few percent of the land they lost trying to wipe out 100% of Israel.
This is really preposterously one sided, but by you, as this conversation or anything near it would not be taking place if the Arabs had won a single one of those wars.
The authors and even the anti-Isreal UNH agreed with whis small adjustment to a more "Secure and recognized" borders and did indeed envision a small adjustment to the 1967 lines in Israel's favor.
Now please READ THE ABOVE..
I just had to restate and explain and the most elemental level why an adjustment is fair and why most thought so then too.
--
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/cis/classrooms/asx/jbsa/bg.html
|
|
|
Posts:
278
Registered:
12/7/05
|
|
(8 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Dec 29, 2005 8:58 AM
|
> There were no "Palestinians" then and no "Rights".
All human beings have rights, a theory put forward in late c18th by writers such as Tom Paine. Palastine existsed before the establishment of the British mandate i.e. under the Turks, therefore its inhabitants were Palastinian (whether Christain, Jewsih or Muslim).
> At this point I don't thing a few percent buffer is
> unreasonable (Israel having already returned the
> Sinai and now Gaza, and will give 95% of the WB), and
> the Palestinians (and the Syrian Shooting Gallery
> called Golan) will just have to live without a few
> percent of the land they lost trying to wipe out 100%
> of Israel.
Once again you ignore the right of a future Palastine and the existing Syria to security - the Golan are within shelling range of Damascus, as well as parts of the Israeli countryside.
> Now please READ THE ABOVE..
I have read the above and also the full text of 242 on the UN's website:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
which I consider a slightly more even handed source than 'Christains for Israel'. You neglected to state that the resolution also states:
1. Emphasing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.
2. Affirms further the necessity for acheiving a just settlement of the refugee problem.
3. Affirms further the necessity for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area.
So whereas you correctly point out the lack of the word 'all' in the resolution, 242 makes it clear that territory can not be seized by war, which rules out Israeli annexation of the Golan, even 1% of the WB or East Jerusalem.
242 goes on to call for settlement of the refugee problem - they're still waiting 28 years later.
242 also talks about territorial integrity of all states, so yes Israel, but also Syria re the Golan.
Finally 242 talsk about political independence of all states, which and this is my intrepretation means a Palastinian state.
So, perhaps, some clever ommission of words, but also pretty clear calls for the return of the Golan, non annexation of East Jerusalem and opposition to seizure of any land through war.
|
|
|
Posts:
252
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
(9 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Dec 29, 2005 1:10 PM
|
> > There were no "Palestinians" then and no "Rights".
>
> All human beings have rights, a theory put forward in
> late c18th by writers such as Tom Paine. Palastine
> existsed before the establishment of the British
> mandate i.e. under the Turks, therefore its
> inhabitants were Palastinian (whether Christain,
> Jewsih or Muslim).
Incorrect.
There as no political 'Palestine' there WERE 3 Sanjaks/provinces of the Ottoman Empire.
>
>
> > At this point I don't thing a few percent buffer
> is
> > unreasonable (Israel having already returned the
> > Sinai and now Gaza, and will give 95% of the WB),
> and
> > the Palestinians (and the Syrian Shooting Gallery
> > called Golan) will just have to live without a few
> > percent of the land they lost trying to wipe out
> 100%
> > of Israel.
>
> Once again you ignore the right of a future Palastine
> and the existing Syria to security - .....
I ignore nothing
You ignore the facts
I am FOR a Palestinian State.
I'm denying No one's Rights.
I am also for the reasonable/small border adjustment for the reasons previously stated and As spelled out in Resolution 242 further UNMISTAKEABLY [except for you] elaborated by the Authors of that resolution above.
(Border adjustments similarly and even much more dracoinianly made just years before in WW2)
So if you [again] have no real rebuttal and one again based on BS like I'm "Denying someone's rights"... please don't bother as you are just making yourself look bad.. er.. continually worse.
--
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/cis/classrooms/asx/jbsa/bg.html
|
|
|
Posts:
278
Registered:
12/7/05
|
|
(10 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Dec 29, 2005 1:34 PM
|
> Incorrect.
>
> There as no political 'Palestine' there WERE 3
> Sanjaks/provinces of the Ottoman Empire.
There may well have been three Sanjaks, but my 1903 atlas names the area Palastine. Either way, the important thing is what's happening today.
> I ignore nothing
> You ignore the facts
So answer the point re the Golan and 242.
> I am FOR a Palestinian State.
> I'm denying No one's Rights.
Good, we can agree on the goal.
> I am also for the reasonable/small border adjustment
> for the reasons previously stated and As
> spelled out in Resolution 242 further
> UNMISTAKEABLY [except for you] elaborated by the
> Authors of that resolution above.
Reasonable/small border adjuistments are fine, so long as they go both ways and provide security for Israel and Palastine.
> So if you [again] have no real rebuttal and one again
> based on BS like I'm "Denying someone's rights"...
> please don't bother as you are just making yourself
> look bad.. er.. continually worse.
You haven't answered my points about the Golan, East Jerusalem, refugees or not gaining land by war - all refered to in 242.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,502
Registered:
7/6/03
|
|
(11 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Dec 31, 2005 2:30 AM
|
the Christian Action for Israel website? Nice choice of an impartial source. Hahaha 
What is next the Jewish Defense League and Kach official website
--
----------------------------
Religion is the opium of the masses - Karl Marx
[img=http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Cyrus%20the%20Great/cyrus_portrait.jpg]
I am Koroush King of the World
-Koroush the Great
|
|
|
Posts:
6,502
Registered:
7/6/03
|
|
(12 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Dec 31, 2005 2:34 AM
|
> Israel was perfectly content with it's borders until 1967, when it became clear the Arabs weren't after yet another attempt to wipe out the Jews and the New and narrow state.
If so then why doens't Israel give back the lands that it took during the war. The only land israel has given back is after war either after the Yom Kippur war or after Hezbollah pushed them out of S.Lebanon. This has created the impression that the only way to deal with Israel is through violence.
However Israel can reverse this impression by giving back the Golan Heights in return for certain guarantees from Syria.
--
----------------------------
Religion is the opium of the masses - Karl Marx
[img=http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Cyrus%20the%20Great/cyrus_portrait.jpg]
I am Koroush King of the World
-Koroush the Great
|
|
|
Posts:
252
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
(13 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Dec 31, 2005 7:34 AM
|
>
> However Israel can reverse this impression by giving
> back the Golan Heights in return for certain
> guarantees from Syria.
And what Gaurantees would those be? "I promise"?
LOL
Israel had "Gaurantees" of Safety/UN Troops between 1949-1967 .. Until Nasser asked them to leave..
And they Did!!!!
One of the causes OF that war.
So what is it can syria possible "gaurantee" and who cares? They should Get on with the other 99% of there country; it was a small price to pay compared to what Israel had to if They lost.
My post from another board:
""The Arabs REJECTED the partition (resolution 181) and decided to Try and Wipe out Israel.
You left that small detail out among many others including it was the Arab States who asked the Palestinians to leave while they wiped out the Jews.. Then they could all come back and happpily divide the spoils. (and bulldoze the former inhabitants into the Mediterranean)
Whatever few percent (perhaps now under 1%) they lost and have lost permanently in the 1948 and 1967 Wars to Eliminate Israel is Tough Sh*t.
In Wars, aggressors often lose territory.
Note that's how the Arab States were Carved out of the FORMER Ottoman Empire.. of which the Arabs got 99%, and 100% of the Oil.
But that's OK I guess.
Borders change.
Look at a political Map of 1900 and again at one of 2000.
You'll notice some dramatic differences based on Lost Wars.
Apparently the Arabs are immune from these processes and get to keep trying to wipe out the Jews from the same borders according to some..
Not me-
No 'Do-overs' (or three-overs) .. they were playing for keeps.
Stop Whining.
(especially since Israel has given back 99% anyway, and counting)
--
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/cis/classrooms/asx/jbsa/bg.html
|
|
|
Posts:
6,502
Registered:
7/6/03
|
|
(14 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Jan 2, 2006 9:29 PM
|
It is fine with me do a unilateral pull out if you so desire. However I am a former soldier and I know enough about war to know that often the difference between years more of bloodshed and peace is the opportunity for both sides to resign honourable.
--
----------------------------
Religion is the opium of the masses - Karl Marx
[img=http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Cyrus%20the%20Great/cyrus_portrait.jpg]
-Koroush the Great
'Worthy ruler and lawgiver' to conquered Greeks
'The Lord's anointed' to the Jews whom he liberated
and to Persians simply 'Father'
|
|
|
Posts:
278
Registered:
12/7/05
|
|
(15 of 35)
Re: Resolutio 242; What it means (and doesn't) 1
Jan 3, 2006 3:30 AM
|
> >
> > However Israel can reverse this impression by
> giving
> > back the Golan Heights in return for certain
> > guarantees from Syria.
>
> And what Gaurantees would those be? "I promise"?
>
> LOL
>
> Israel had "Gaurantees" of Safety/UN Troops between
> 1949-1967 .. Until Nasser asked them to leave..
> And they Did!!!!
> One of the causes OF that war.
> So what is it can syria possible "gaurantee" and who
> cares?
Actually Israel and Egypt exchanged land for peace in 1977 - the Sinai. I haven't noticed there being a war between the two in the 29 years since.
|
|
|
|
|
