Resolution 242; 1967 Borders; "illegal" even "Occupied"

[mbig]

My point is...

The most widely acknowledged Basis for Peace by Both sides, Resolution 242, is the subject of wild revisionism of late and that it, contrary to popular belief, does absolutely NOT entail Israel withdrawing to the 1967 lines as the bais for that Peace.
Rather, always foresaw Israel taking a buffer to achieve the New 'secure and recognized' boundaries.
And that already having given back 95%+ in Sinai and Gaza, that the '3% Fence' and Golan could be deemed that foreseen buffer, As Is. Legally and ethically.
More negotiation is possible however, tho with who is a problem.

And further, altho Not part of 242, to save arab face/street and make peace more likely, a further land exchange for the settlements behind that fence, is a likely consideration at this point.
-

 

[bub]

My point is...

The most widely acknowledged Basis for Peace by Both sides, Resolution 242, is the subject of wild revisionism of late and that it, contrary to popular belief, does absolutely NOT entail Israel withdrawing to the 1967 lines as the bais for that Peace.
Rather, always foresaw Israel taking a buffer to achieve the New 'secure and recognized' boundaries.
And that already having given back 95%+ in Sinai and Gaza, that the '3% Fence' and Golan could be deemed that foreseen buffer, As Is. Legally and ethically.
More negotiation is possible however, tho with who is a problem.

And further, altho Not part of 242, to save arab face/street and make peace more likely, a further land exchange for the settlements behind that fence, is a likely consideration at this point.
-

indeed, I'm not against land swaps (a square kilometer of Israeli territory for every square kilometer of colonies in West Bank), but a part of Jerusalem should remain Palestinian too.

 

[gree0232]

My point is...

The most widely acknowledged Basis for Peace by Both sides, Resolution 242, is the subject of wild revisionism of late and that it, contrary to popular belief, does absolutely NOT entail Israel withdrawing to the 1967 lines as the bais for that Peace.
Rather, always foresaw Israel taking a buffer to achieve the New 'secure and recognized' boundaries.
And that already having given back 95%+ in Sinai and Gaza, that the '3% Fence' and Golan could be deemed that foreseen buffer, As Is. Legally and ethically.
More negotiation is possible however, tho with who is a problem.

And further, altho Not part of 242, to save arab face/street and make peace more likely, a further land exchange for the settlements behind that fence, is a likely consideration at this point.
-

And, as I stated big, it is also utterly irrelevant.

As there are two sides to this conflict, we also have to take into account the OTHER side.

The closest we have ever come to peace was based upon a rough approximation of the 1967 borders. Every international peace plan uses the 1967 borders, with rough adjustement, as the basis of peace.

You are basically saying that the 1967 borders do not matter, that Israel can take what it wants. I am telling that such a stance will lead inevitably to war. It is war that Israel will fight by itself, a violent a grinding insurgency that Israel may not win.

The point being, if you don't think the 1967 borders matter, then where exactly would should the border be placed? Bear in mind, there are others at the table who have opinions on this decision.

So if we are going to make a case that flies in the face of every serious peace proposal, maybe we can address the consequences of such a decision?

 

[mbig]

And, as I stated big, it is also utterly irrelevant.

As there are two sides to this conflict, we also have to take into account the OTHER side.

The closest we have ever come to peace was based upon a rough approximation of the 1967 borders. Every international peace plan uses the 1967 borders, with rough adjustement, as the basis of peace.

You are basically saying that the 1967 borders do not matter, that Israel can take what it wants. I am telling that such a stance will lead inevitably to war. It is war that Israel will fight by itself, a violent a grinding insurgency that Israel may not win.

The point being, if you don't think the 1967 borders matter, then where exactly would should the border be placed? Bear in mind, there are others at the table who have opinions on this decision.

So if we are going to make a case that flies in the face of every serious peace proposal, maybe we can address the consequences of such a decision?

What Planet are we on?

I am not saying/have not said the 1967 borders don't matter.

In fact, Resolution 242 is BASED ON THE 1967 BORDERS... just with small adjustment to New 'secure and recognized'/more defendable ones.

The Fence Hugs the Green line/67 borders for the most part, jutting out in some places.
Gaza, the Exact Line has been returned. (to the "honorable"/constructive Gazans)
Sinai, the Exact Line is as it was then.
The Golan Heights also a natural defensive/high-ground buffer slightly into That '67 border.

ALL On or near the 1967/old border .. but with some small alteration.

Your assertion, therefore, that my post/string was irrelevant is absurD, as is your new post that says my post/string say the 67 borders "don't matter".

Now I see why you usually try and bury these qqqlaims in loonnnnng posts.
-

 

[gree0232]

What Planet are we on?

I am not saying/have not said the 1967 borders don't matter.

In fact, Resolution 242 is BASED ON THE 1967 BORDERS... just with small adjustment to New 'secure and recognized'/more defendable ones.

The Fence Hugs the Green line/67 borders for the most part, jutting out in some places.
Gaza, the Exact Line has been returned. (to the "honorable"/constructive Gazans)
Sinai, the Exact Line is as it was then.
The Golan Heights also a natural defensive/high-ground buffer slightly into That '67 border.

ALL On or near the 1967/old border .. but with some small alteration.

Your assertion, therefore, that my post/string was irrelevant is absurD, as is your new post that says my post/string say the 67 borders "don't matter".

Now I see why you usually try and bury these qqqlaims in loonnnnng posts.
-

OK, so if you are saying that the 1967 borders DO matter, what is the point ooooffff yooooouuurrrr veeeerrryyy loooonnngggg diatribe that started this thread?

 

[mbig]

OK, so if you are saying that the 1967 borders DO matter, what is the point ooooffff yooooouuurrrr veeeerrryyy loooonnngggg diatribe that started this thread?

Man, you have a bad case of last-wording, no matter that that there is no content, merely combativeness.

as I said just above your post #30 with my post #26:

My point is...

The most widely acknowledged Basis for Peace by Both sides, Resolution 242, is the subject of wild revisionism of late and that it, contrary to popular belief, does absolutely NOT entail Israel withdrawing to the 1967 lines as the bais for that Peace.
Rather, always foresaw Israel taking a buffer to achieve the New 'secure and recognized' boundaries.
And that already having given back 95%+ in Sinai and Gaza, that the '3% Fence' and Golan could be deemed that foreseen buffer, As Is. Legally and ethically.
More negotiation is possible however, tho with who is a problem.

And further, altho Not part of 242, to save arab face/street and make peace more likely, a further land exchange for the settlements behind that fence, is a likely consideration at this point.
-

 

[creation]

OK, so if you are saying that the 1967 borders DO matter, what is the point ooooffff yooooouuurrrr veeeerrryyy loooonnngggg diatribe that started this thread?

I think he's saying that Resolution 242 should be interpreted in Isreal's favour, the west bank is disputed not occupied etc etc.

 

[mbig]

I'm saying 242 should be interpreted As it was Intended and elucidated in the OPs by it's Authors and voted on by UN members.

You can call that 'Israel's favour' but in Fact it's realistic and non-revisionist.
ergo: that's why Syria and the Palestinians rejected 242 initially.
-

 

[gree0232]

I'm saying 242 should be interpreted As it was Intended and elucidated in the OPs by it's Authors and voted on by UN members.

You can call that 'Israel's favour' but in Fact it's realistic and non-revisionist.
ergo: that's why Syria and the Palestinians rejected 242 initially.
-

Big, and yet it still doesn't matter.

This is a side show to the main event.

If peace is the main event, and I think it should be, then the 1967 border IS relevant. There will have to be adjustments based on how the ground has shifted, but those must be, by necessity, equitable.

Israel's security needs must be balanced against the viablity of a Palestinian state.

All of your word play does not change the fact that you have never once identified a border, substantially different from the 1967 border, that would equate to equitable peace between the two parties.

Unless your intent is to undermine all international peace agreements, what eactly is your intent regarding the 1967 border? How does your arguement advance peace?

 

[creation]

Big, and yet it still doesn't matter.

This is a side show to the main event.

If peace is the main event, and I think it should be, then the 1967 border IS relevant. There will have to be adjustments based on how the ground has shifted, but those must be, by necessity, equitable.

Israel's security needs must be balanced against the viablity of a Palestinian state.

All of your word play does not change the fact that you have never once identified a border, substantially different from the 1967 border, that would equate to equitable peace between the two parties.

Unless your intent is to undermine all international peace agreements, what eactly is your intent regarding the 1967 border? How does your arguement advance peace?

Gree he is saying that advancing Isreal's wants and desires is the embodiment of peace, since peace is what Isreal is all about to its very core.

He is also sayin that all major criticism of Isreal is essentially invalid since his interpretation, which is the only reasonable one, just happens to concur with Isreal's line.

Everything else flows from that. Give Isreal what it wants, concede to its viewpoint, and peace will inevitably follow - except of course for those unreasonable Arabs who hold out to this truth that the international community must assist Isreal in wiping out.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/57330-marital-law-me-forum.html

 

[mbig]

Gree he is saying that advancing Isreal's wants and desires is the embodiment of peace, since peace is what Isreal is all about to its very core.

He is also sayin that all major criticism of Isreal is essentially invalid since his interpretation, which is the only reasonable one, just happens to concur with Isreal's line.

Everything else flows from that. Give Isreal what it wants, concede to its viewpoint, and peace will inevitably follow - except of course for those unreasonable Arabs who hold out to this truth that the international community must assist Isreal in wiping out.

No, that's not what I said.
Just as you tried to spin what I said about 242 as being in "Israel's favour".
You are welcome to try and debate any other meaning rather than just characterize my position as a biased one.
?

I'm saying (and there's been NO debate to the contrary!) that the Resolution says the 1967 borders should be slightly altered to NEW "secure and recognized" ones. This achieved by Incomplete withdrawal, but preferably by/with negotiation.
I have spoken of/even conceded land exchange though 242 doesn't require compensation for these new buffers.

There is no Single 'palestinian' leadership to negotiate with and the positions of both factions is the Exact 1967 borders; Period. Contrary to 242.

Again, rather than merely characterizing my position I would appreciate some meaty debate of why my interpretation (and solution for that matter) is not accurate, and further.. moderate/centrist and in the pursuit of peace.
-

 

[creation]

No, that's not what I said.
Just as you tried to spin what I said about 242 as being in "Israel's favour".
You are welcome to try and debate any other meaning rather than just characterize my position as a biased one.
?

I'm saying (and there's been NO debate to the contrary!) that the Resolution says the 1967 borders should be slightly altered to NEW "secure and recognized" ones. This achieved by Incomplete withdrawal, but preferably by/with negotiation.
I have spoken of/even conceded land exchange though 242 doesn't require compensation for these new buffers.

There is no Single 'palestinian' leadership to negotiate with and the positions of both factions is the Exact 1967 borders; Period. Contrary to 242.

Again, rather than merely characterizing my position I would appreciate some meaty debate of why my interpretation (and solution for that matter) is not accurate, and further.. moderate/centrist and in the pursuit of peace.
-

Ok mbig.

Let me ask you something.

Does Isreal's victory in 1967 grant it sovereignty over lands it occupies?

Is it your contention that 242 requires withdrawal from only some but not all territories?

Ill give the rest of the counter argument to my source of information;

RESOLUTION 242 ? WHY THE ISRAELI VIEW OF THE ?WITHDRAWAL PHRASE? IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Israeli position encounters a number of difficulties, only one of which needs tobe fatal in order to invalidate the Israeli interpretation.


Despite the absence of “all” or the definite article “the” before “territories”, it cannotbe said that “territories” is undefined. “Territories” is defined as a specific categoryof territories, namely “territories occupied in the recent conflict.” So long as thereare still territories which Israel occupied in that conflict, and from which nowithdrawal has taken place, can it be said that Israel has complied with the principle?This writer believes that the answer to this is in the negative, and that it follows fromthis that the Israeli position does not reflect the ordinary meaning of the wording.The translators into French who produced the official text (French being the otherworking language of the UN and of equal status with English) believed that theFrench text reflected the ordinary meaning of the English text. And the French text isquite clear in referring to the territories: Retrait des forces armées israéliennes desterritoires occupés lors du récent conflit.
This contains the French definite article desin its genitive form, which clearly means “from the” in this context.Even if the wording of the withdrawal phrase is ambiguous, and both the Israeli viewand that of this writer are sustainable readings of it, it must be placed in the contextof the rest of the Resolution.

And we find other expressions in the Resolution whichare not preceded by words such as “all” or “the”, but where in context it isinconceivable (and, incidentally, grossly inimical to Israel’s interests) that the reasonfor the absence of such words was that only “some” and not “all” were intended.

Consider the following:“secure and recognised boundaries” 10 (para. 1(II));“international waterways” 11 (para 2(a)).


Could it be seriously suggested that the intention is that only “some”, and not “all”,of the boundaries should be secure and recognised?Could it be seriously suggested that the intention is that only “some”, and not “all” ofthe international waterways in the area need a guarantee of freedom of navigation?

Yet such assertions would not be different from Israel’s position with regard to withdrawal from “some” of the territories occupied in the recent conflict. The onlydifference is that the latter is self-serving from an Israeli perspective, whilst the twoother examples given above are unfavourable from an Israeli perspective

 

[mbig]

Ok mbig.

Let me ask you something.

Does Isreal's victory in 1967 grant it sovereignty over lands it occupies?

Is it your contention that 242 requires withdrawal from only some but not all territories?

Ill give the rest of the counter argument to my source of information;
....

Ahh, made you at least use Google! :^)

YES, it's Absolutely my contention that Resolution 242 means withdrawal from only "some" of the territories.
As I've said at least a dozen times in this and other strings.

Your Link/McHugo's interpretation might make sense... But Only in a Vacuum!.. Pretending we have no other information.

One could argue simply 'territories' means "all", BUT we have the statements/Intent of the drafters/authors and voters to dispell any doubt about what it does mean.
The words, in THIS case, 'All' and 'the' were Specifically and categorically Rejected because that is NOT what was intended. Resolutions/drafts containing those prefacing words were rejected for THAT reason.

One only need look at the two OPs to find that out.
Really pre-rebutting McHugo's Disingenuous attempt.

....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.....


....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...

....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..."


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..

and Caradon 2:

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)

USA

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."

USSR

- Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said 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."

Other beyond doubt facts?
Both Syria And the Palestinians Rejected 242, only later (1973/1988!) going for the 'French translation'/Mistranslation which because of a quirk of language did contain the article (Des) intentionally left off the debated-in-English one.

At the same time the USSR had introduced General Assembly Resolution 519 calling for Withdrawal from 'all' the territories without condition.
It was Rejected even in that larger body.

Thanks,
abu_afak/mbig

 

[creation]

Ahh, made you at least use Google! :^)

YES, it's Absolutely my contention that Resolution 242 means withdrawal from only "some" of the territories.
As I've said at least a dozen times in this and other strings.

Your Link/McHugo's interpretation might make sense... But Only in a Vacuum!.. Pretending we have no other information.

One could argue simply 'territories' means "all", BUT we have the statements/Intent of the drafters/authors and voters to dispell any doubt about what it does mean.
The words, in THIS case, 'All' and 'the' were Specifically and categorically Rejected because that is NOT what was intended. Resolutions/drafts containing those prefacing words were rejected for THAT reason.

One only need look at the two OPs to find that out.
Really pre-rebutting McHugo's Disingenuous attempt.



Other beyond doubt facts?
Both Syria And the Palestinians Rejected 242, only later (1973/1988!) going for the 'French translation'/Mistranslation which because of a quirk of language did contain the article (Des) intentionally left off the debated-in-English one.

At the same time the USSR had introduced General Assembly Resolution 519 calling for Withdrawal from 'all' the territories without condition.
It was Rejected even in that larger body.

Thanks,
abu_afak/mbig

Yes, you made me use google. Is it different for you?

Why is the statements you mention relevant?

Are they given in a court of law? Are they legally binding evidence?

Surely the words in the official text must be judged not by other outside statements but by the words as they are used in the rest of the document.

Also, this argument is crucial. Disreagrding the rest of documents text and only interpreting the parts you feel are in your favour is height of falsity;

And we find other expressions in the Resolution whichare not preceded by words such as “all” or “the”, but where in context it isinconceivable (and, incidentally, grossly inimical to Israel’s interests) that the reasonfor the absence of such words was that only “some” and not “all” were intended.Consider the following:“secure and recognised boundaries” 10 (para. 1(II));“international waterways” 11 (para 2(a)).Could it be seriously suggested that the intention is that only “some”, and not “all”,of the boundaries should be secure and recognised?Could it be seriously suggested that the intention is that only “some”, and not “all” ofthe international waterways in the area need a guarantee of freedom of navigation?Yet such assertions would not be different from Israel’s position with regard towithdrawal from “some” of the territories occupied in the recent conflict. The onlydifference is that the latter is self-serving from an Israeli perspective, whilst the twoother examples given above are unfavourable from an Israeli perspective.

 

[donsutherland1]

Surely the words in the official text must be judged not by other outside statements but by the words as they are used in the rest of the document.

Also, this argument is crucial. Disreagrding the rest of documents text and only interpreting the parts you feel are in your favour is height of falsity;

Creation,

Two points:

1. The statements of those who drafted/worked to develop UNSC Res. 242 are important as they highlight the original intent of the parties.

2. Also, if one goes back to the armistice agreements that produced the 1967 boundaries, one finds that those agreements made clear that the boundaries were not final borders. They were merely demarcation lines for purposes of separating the armed forces.

Together, the original intent of those involved in drafting/securing adoption of UNSC Res. 242 and the earlier agreements that defined the nature of what were the 1967 boundaries shed light on that matter.

Having said that, one should be aware that the parties to the conflict have different perceptions how the border dispute aspect of the historic conflict (excepting Jordan and Egypt, with whom permanent boundaries have been established in peace agreements with Israel). Some degree of compromise will be required by Israel, Syria, and the Palestinians if the historic conflict is to be resolved.

In general, something close to the 1967 borders with some adjustments to assure Israel "secure" boundaries will be needed. The Clinton parameters (which Israel accepted, not to mention former Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's willingness to go somewhat farther) and the Clinton formula that would have returned virtually all of the Golan Heights to Syria (that Israel accepted, as well) provide some practical ideas for outlining the borders in a settlement. Obviously, the current Israeli government may not go as far, but even it would go far in the direction where earlier Israeli commitments had gone.

 

[mbig]

\

Yes, you made me use google. Is it different for you?

Much different. I've been doing this for 10 years .. know it cold.
I often google to find My Own old posts though. :^)
242, The Old 'Liberty', 1967 War, 'Refugees', 'Palestinians', The Mandate, 19th Century Palestine, Islamist semantics, Palestinian Child indoctrination .. ya know the whole M-E thing.

Why is the statements you mention relevant?

Are they given in a court of law? Are they legally binding evidence?

Surely the words in the official text must be judged not by other outside statements but by the words as they are used in the rest of the document.

-
The statements I presented are not "Outside".. there are the Ultimate INSIDE.

Today, the "intent of the Framers" [of the US Constitution] is constanty debated and sought in Making "LAW".

Luckily (not so for you and others) we Have the Intent, and even exact words and debate OF the framers of This document when we Need to interpret exactly what it does mean.

But you can continue, like McHugo, to pretend we don't!
Just don't try and pass that off on a board I post on.

(BTW, when you told your son, "Get out of 'here'", did you mean the kitchen or 'all' of 'the' abode?)

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

I've been perusing each and every post. Much better. Carry on.

 

[gree0232]

Creation,

Two points:

1. The statements of those who drafted/worked to develop UNSC Res. 242 are important as they highlight the original intent of the parties.

2. Also, if one goes back to the armistice agreements that produced the 1967 boundaries, one finds that those agreements made clear that the boundaries were not final borders. They were merely demarcation lines for purposes of separating the armed forces.

Together, the original intent of those involved in drafting/securing adoption of UNSC Res. 242 and the earlier agreements that defined the nature of what were the 1967 boundaries shed light on that matter.

Having said that, one should be aware that the parties to the conflict have different perceptions how the border dispute aspect of the historic conflict (excepting Jordan and Egypt, with whom permanent boundaries have been established in peace agreements with Israel). Some degree of compromise will be required by Israel, Syria, and the Palestinians if the historic conflict is to be resolved.

In general, something close to the 1967 borders with some adjustments to assure Israel "secure" boundaries will be needed. The Clinton parameters (which Israel accepted, not to mention former Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's willingness to go somewhat farther) and the Clinton formula that would have returned virtually all of the Golan Heights to Syria (that Israel accepted, as well) provide some practical ideas for outlining the borders in a settlement. Obviously, the current Israeli government may not go as far, but even it would go far in the direction where earlier Israeli commitments had gone.

I read the various posts on the thread, and, even the best (like the one above), are fundamentally missing one element: The Palestinian point of view.

I think it is very interesting that so many of the posters in this forum find that the UN is biased toward Israel, and then make great hash out a single UN resolution is if this one, and this one alone, holds the key.

There are literally hundreds of UN resolutions regarding the IP conflict, and this is in the bottom half of those resolutions. It is from a time when the Israeli Palestinian conflict was the Israeli Arab conflict. Clearly the conditions have changed since then.

What has not changed is the idea that there are two sides to this conflict. I still fail entirely to see what the point if of rendering this tired, and clearly biased (tongue in cheeck) UN resolution does to solve the IP conflict?

If Israel were to trumpet this document out and lay claim to the ability to significantly adjustment of the 1967 borders (which every major peace plan lists as the foundation from which to build peace), without mentioning any impact on Palestinian state or equitable land swap to maintain a viable Palestinian state, the peace process effectively ends right there in its tracks.

To do this would look like a naked grab to retain Israeli settlements (even if all we are doing is an exercise in legalese). I would challenge those ardently in favor of this approach to demonstrate why they think the Palestinians would accept such a proposition?

You cannot make peace between two parties by ignoring one of the parties.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You cannot make peace between two parties by ignoring one of the parties.

Excellent observation.

 

[mbig]

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. ..."​

The PLO's Phased Plan

Enjoy the rest of the Link too.
In itself an interesting string topic.
Speak to 'Hudna hamas' and their offer which pretty much is the 'Phased Plan'.

 

[gree0232]

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. ..."​

The PLO's Phased Plan

Enjoy the rest of the Link too.
In itself an interesting string topic.
Speak to 'Hudna hamas' and their offer which pretty much is the 'Phased Plan'.

Wow, 1974, prior to the signing of the Camp David Accords .... clearly still relevant. Now, the last UN resolution on the IP conflict?

How about 605 and 641? Regarding Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?

726? Condeming Israel for deporting Palestinians.

1860 would be the latest, and that dealt with the last war in Gaza (which reflects the 1967 border -- ironic.)

Again, what exactly are you advancing with the 242 arguement? Are saying that the 1967 border is a basis of negotiation or not?

 

[mbig]

You seem to think this is only for 'Latest News'.
It's about Resolution 242, it's meaning, genesis, and Revisionism OF it.

NOW, still TODAY... we have Arabs,/'Palestinians' demanding compliance with 242 As IF it means full withdrawal.
So showing their position even 7 years after they refused the first time ie certainly relevant to the string and has been debated within it.
-

 

[gree0232]

You seem to think this is only for 'Latest News'.
It's about Resolution 242, it's meaning, genesis, and Revisionism OF it.

NOW, still TODAY... we have Arabs,/'Palestinians' demanding compliance with 242 As IF it means full withdrawal.
So showing their position even 7 years after they refused the first time ie certainly relevant to the string and has been debated within it.
-

Nope, just relevant news.

1973 was just after the Yom Kippur War and before the Camp David Accords were signed turning the Arab-Israeli conflict into the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Still does not answer the question about intent. Are you aregueing that Israel should or should not seek to significantly adjust the 1967 borders?

In short, what is your thesis? What is the relevance? Why are you dragging this resolution out four decades after it was signed?

If the context was to separate combatants, who included Arab armies at the time, what is the relevance AT ALL today, when there are no Arab armies posed to invade Israel?

 

[mbig]

I have posted my 'Thesis' specifically many times.
That, in fact is the purpose of this string!
While you CAN'T Answer what territory/PERCENT/are 'specifically means.

I mean and have elucidated why.
Isreal gets basically the '3% Fence' (all of Gaza lready returned) and perhaps compensates Palewtinians with other land for the same amount of land taken. Give or take a few acres.

That's it. That's my solution while you Hedge behind 'significant' you can't/won't define.
-