The Original Intent of UN Security Council Resolution 242

[mbig]

Why havent you addressed any of the arguments presented?

I not only addressed it, I won it, and Exhausted it.

Lest you forget, this string is a DUPLICATE of MY 242 string:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...n-242-1967-borders-illegal-even-occupied.html

Which ended with YOU ADMITTING you have Nothing New to add.
(Except, that is, the usual Jew-baiting... which in that case included an unwelcome PM, other times just the last-word in Most of my strings, even one titled 'error')

 

[creation]

I not only addressed it, I won it, and Exhausted it.

Lest you forget, this string is a DUPLICATE of MY 242 string:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...n-242-1967-borders-illegal-even-occupied.html

Which ended with YOU ADMITTING you have Nothing New to add.
(Except, that is, the usual Jew-baiting... which in that case included an unwelcome PM, other times just the last-word in Most of my strings, even one titled 'error')

Hmm surely if youd exhausted it you would have bothered to address my points raised.

I still cant see the point in adding something new without any response to what Ive already offered. All I'll likely get is the same.

 

[creation]

Anyway, cjpme's argument, though not addressed by its opponents here comes in a few different angles;

Lord Caradon claims later that without the inadmissibility preamble there could have been unanimous vote

in 1967, 10 of the 15 UNSC members emphasised in their interventions in above preamble and Israel's requirement to fully withdraw

when israel first proposed annexation of the west bank it was the US that informed it that 242 never meant that israel could extend its territory to the west bank and that there would be no peace if israel tries to hold on to large chunks of territory.

even israelis at the time held no illusions about the resolution. Moshe Dayan even advised his fellow labour party members to reject the resolution because 'it means withdrawal to the June 4 1967 borders...'

Additionally we can add the plain english reading of the text and that the French reading of the text does not allow any loophole over the lack of 'the'.

Also even if we entertain the Israeli notion that Israel's war was defensive, article 2 of the UN charter does not allow that to be a reason to keep territory. This principle was upheld by the ICJ in 2004, referring to previous customary international law and to its previous ruling regarding Nicaragua and the United States.

Withdrawal is Israel's route to peace, the Arab league in 2002 offered to consider the conflict ended upon withdrawal and even Hamas stated that withdrawal would trigger recognition and the end of violence.

 

[bub]

Adding to the material on the meaning of UNSC Res. 242, here's how Eugene Rostow, who was U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and played a role in drafting the Resolution, explained it:

Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved

.

Doesn't that mean that the old (1948) borders are the good ones?

When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories, nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

There is a translation problem: the French text says "from THE territories". Many authors say that the French version is the good one, since it would be inconsistent with the rest of the resolution to withdraw only from some territories, since the resolution says "it is not acceptable that territories get gained through war". It would be paradoxal that this inadmissibility would be established for certain territories and not for others.

(source: les relations internationales de 1815 à nos jours, C. Roosens, tome II, p. 282)

 

[bub]

We could have said; well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Isn't it the same for most boundaries?

Most boundaries in Africa and in North America are not beter, they're just straight lines following lattitudes or longitudes, crossing mountains, rivers and other natural boundaries.

Then boundaries are always influenced by the wars and alliances, sometimes they're very strange
Baarle Nassau and Baarle Hertog

Furthermore, why would the 1967 border be so bad? Isn't Israel/Palestine basically a large plain?

 

[mbig]

.


There is a translation problem: the French text says "from THE territories". Many authors say that the French version is the good one, since it would be inconsistent with the rest of the resolution to withdraw only from some territories, since the resolution says "it is not acceptable that territories get gained through war". It would be paradoxal that this inadmissibility would be established for certain territories and not for others.
....

Except for the simplest of explanations and actual history.

The debate and final draft were in ENGLISH.
During that debate the words 'the' and 'all' had been Specificaly Rejected.
Not omitted by mistake; specificfally rejected.
The subject/attempt of many Failed drafts.

The 'French Translation', ergo is a MIStranslation due to a quirk of the language Mistakenly included the article that was Intentionally Omitted.

This is in Both 242 strings.
Read them.
Especially the OPs in my Original: http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...n-242-1967-borders-illegal-even-occupied.html
-

 

[bub]

Except for the simplest of explanations and actual history.

The debate and final draft were in ENGLISH.
During that debate the words 'the' and 'all' had been Specificaly Rejected.
Not omitted by mistake; specificfally rejected.

The 'French Translation', ergo is a MIStranslation due to a quirk of the language Mistakenly included the article Specifically Rejected.

This is in Both 242 strings.

oh really?

1) Do you know that there are 6 official languages in the UN, and that only the English version says "territories" and not "the territories"?

2) Do you know that the French (and Russian, Spanish etc...) versions are the ones that are consistent with the rest of the resolution? : "the context of the passage, in a treaty that reaffirms "'territorial integrity', 'territorial inviolability,' and 'the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war' - taken together cannot be reconciled with anything less than full withdrawal"

3) Look at this example: " Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park.

In spite of the lack of definite articles, according to McHugo, it is clear that such an instruction cannot legitimately be taken to imply that some dogs need not be kept on the lead or that the rule applies only near some ponds. Further, McHugo points out a potential consequence of the logic employed by advocates of a "some" reading. Paragraph 2 (a) of the Resolution, which guarantees "freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area," may allow Arab states to interfere with navigation through some international waterways of their choosing"

 

[bub]

The following explanations are taken from the interview he granted the Journal of Palestine Studies in 1976. The excerpts are limited solely to his actual explanations concerning UN Security Council Resolution 242. His personal ideas, and he took pains to emphasize, in cases, that he was expressing personal opinions as a private citizen, are excluded.

In his interview, Lord Caradon made clear that the final boundaries and the status of Jerusalem could only be determined in negotiations. Thus, contemporary arguments that UNSC Res. 242 entitles the Palestinians to all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem are inconsistent with the original intent of the Resolution. Any resolutions adopted by the UN or European Union that seek to "ratify" a Palestinian state "comprising the West Bank and Gaza and with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the absence of agreement from both Israel and the Palestinians are inconsistent with UNSC Res. 242.

The italicized text is Lord Caradon's commentary.

Pre-1967 War Boundaries:

We could have said; well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong… So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to—let’s read the words carefully—“secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security…

We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

Arriving at “Secure and Recognized Boundaries:”

…when the representatives of the four principal powers [Britain, France, U.S., and U.S.S.R.] met together at that time in the United Nations after the 1967 resolution, we all agreed that what we had to do was to readjust the line to make it a reasonable line, instead of an unreasonable line, and that this could be done one way or the other… We thought that they should be rectified.

Issues Concerning Jerusalem, among others:

These matters have got to be dealt with in negotiations… They’re all difficult. They’re all negotiable.

Source: Lord Caradon, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring-Summer 1976.

I'm reading a bit more on this topic, you don't quote everything Lord Caradon said about the 242 resolution:

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.[17]

Lord Caradon also maintained,

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; it would be insanity.[61]

During a symposium on the subject Lord Caradon said that Israel was in clear defiance of resolution 242. He specifically cited the "annexation of East Jerusalem" and "the creeping colonialism on the West Bank and in Gaza and in the Golan

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mbig]

I guesss we have an Irreconcilable LOGIC Gap, as you post utter IRRELEVANCE.

Again.

The Resolution was debated in ENGLISH.

The word's 'all' and 'the' were Specifically REJECTED.

Do you understand that? Yes nor NO?

AFTER-THE-FACT Translations do NOT address this point or help resolve it. Looking at the Original debate Does.

Since you haven't bothered/taken the time before responding, some partials:

THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242

Caradon:

"......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....


Rostow:

"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 Line..."


"..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. 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."


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."

 

[creation]

I guesss we have an Irreconcilable LOGIC Gap, as you post utter IRRELEVANCE.

Again.

The Resolution was debated in ENGLISH.

The word's 'all' and 'the' were Specifically REJECTED.

Do you understand that? Yes nor NO?

AFTER-THE-FACT Translations do NOT address this point or help resolve it. Looking at the Iriginal debate Does.

Since you haven't bothered some partials:

Rubbish.

Bub is not posting utter irrelevance but entirely relevant stuff, that I have posted also.

But hey, since you like to repeat yourself, lets hear from Bub again;

1) Do you know that there are 6 official languages in the UN, and that only the English version says "territories" and not "the territories"?

2) Do you know that the French (and Russian, Spanish etc...) versions are the ones that are consistent with the rest of the resolution? : "the context of the passage, in a treaty that reaffirms "'territorial integrity', 'territorial inviolability,' and 'the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war' - taken together cannot be reconciled with anything less than full withdrawal"

3) Look at this example: " Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park.

In spite of the lack of definite articles, according to McHugo, it is clear that such an instruction cannot legitimately be taken to imply that some dogs need not be kept on the lead or that the rule applies only near some ponds. Further, McHugo points out a potential consequence of the logic employed by advocates of a "some" reading. Paragraph 2 (a) of the Resolution, which guarantees "freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area," may allow Arab states to interfere with navigation through some international waterways of their choosing"

 

[creation]

And from me;

Lord Caradon claims later that without the inadmissibility preamble there could have been unanimous vote

in 1967, 10 of the 15 UNSC members emphasised in their interventions in above preamble and Israel's requirement to fully withdraw

when israel first proposed annexation of the west bank it was the US that informed it that 242 never meant that israel could extend its territory to the west bank and that there would be no peace if israel tries to hold on to large chunks of territory.

even israelis at the time held no illusions about the resolution. Moshe Dayan even advised his fellow labour party members to reject the resolution because 'it means withdrawal to the June 4 1967 borders...'

Additionally we can add the plain english reading of the text and that the French reading of the text does not allow any loophole over the lack of 'the'.

Also even if we entertain the Israeli notion that Israel's war was defensive, article 2 of the UN charter does not allow that to be a reason to keep territory. This principle was upheld by the ICJ in 2004, referring to previous customary international law and to its previous ruling regarding Nicaragua and the United States.

Withdrawal is Israel's route to peace, the Arab league in 2002 offered to consider the conflict ended upon withdrawal and even Hamas stated that withdrawal would trigger recognition and the end of violence.

 

[bub]

I guesss we have an Irreconcilable LOGIC Gap, as you post utter IRRELEVANCE.

Again.

The Resolution was debated in ENGLISH.

The word's 'all' and 'the' were Specifically REJECTED.

Do you understand that? Yes nor NO?

AFTER-THE-FACT Translations do NOT address this point or help resolve it. Looking at the Iriginal debate Does.

Since you haven't bothered some partials:

I read your post but that is not consistant:

Supporters of an "all territories" reading point out that the intentions and opinions of draftsmen are not normally considered relevant to the interpretation of law,[citation needed] their role being purely administrative. It is claimed that much more weight should be given to opinions expressed on the matter in discussions at the Security Council prior to the adoption of the resolution. 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.

The representatives from Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, as worded by the representative from Mali: "[Mali] wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text." The Russian representative Vasili Kuznetsov stated:

We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". It follows that the provision contained in that draft relating to the right of all States in the Near East "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries" cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war.[62]

Israel was the only country represented at the Security Council to express a contrary view. The USA, United Kingdom, Denmark, China and Japan were silent on the matter, but the US and UK did point out that other countries' comments on the meaning of 242 were simply their own views. The Syrian representative was strongly critical of the text's "vague call on Israel to withdraw".

The statement by the Brazilian representative perhaps gives a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions:

I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States.

However, the Soviet delegate Vasily Kuznetsov argued: " ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. ... make it possible for Israel itself arbitrarily to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its forces only to those lines it considers appropriate." [1373rd meeting, para. 152.]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, you are right, they voted a text that said "territories" and not "the territories" (even while the French version is as valid as the English one) but they repeated that in their opinion, the text was about all the territories.

Furthermore your view is not consistant at all with the main principle stated by this resolution: inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war

I think the debate about the resolution is over :2wave:

 

[Mira]

I guesss we have an Irreconcilable LOGIC Gap, as you post utter IRRELEVANCE.

Again.

The Resolution was debated in ENGLISH.

The word's 'all' and 'the' were Specifically REJECTED.

Do you understand that? Yes nor NO?

AFTER-THE-FACT Translations do NOT address this point or help resolve it. Looking at the Original debate Does.

Since you haven't bothered/taken the time before responding, some partials:

So in short the Israelis bluffed the Palestinians by omitting the word "the", the Americans reasured them with false promises and now you're proud of it. They tricked the Palestinians and now they're saying "nananaaaaaa, the resolution doesn't say "the" territories. How cheap :roll:

No wonder why the Palestinians lost all trust and they are being firm about their demands.

 

[mbig]

How impressive bub!
The representatives of India and Mali! Who?
I put up the Drafters Themselves!
They don't need to infer, they Wrote.

And a Nice PARTIAL quote of Wiki admittedly ONLY From "The supporters of 'all' terriitories".

LOL

While My statements are from The Drafters and major Players themselves, yours from the AFTER-THE-FACT WISHES of non-players.

Again, 'all' and 'the' were Specifically REJECTED. The resolution could Not have passed (and DID Fail) with Either article, only passed WITHOUT them.

Gameover.

 

[donsutherland1]

I'm reading a bit more on this topic, you don't quote everything Lord Caradon said about the 242 resolution.

I didn't believe there was any dispute over what territories had been captured during the war. Once boundaries were established, for which some adjustments were permissible, withdrawal would take place from the captured territories. My focus was on whether some adjustments were permissible under UNSC Res. 242 (they were) rather than the withdrawal that would take following a post-conflict settlement.

As for the annexation issue, Lord Caradon's position was that such a move prejudged a post-conflict settlement. His personal position on Jerusalem was that the Arabs also needed a "role" there for the status to be resolved.

 

[bub]

I didn't believe there was any dispute over what territories had been captured during the war. Once boundaries were established, for which some adjustments were permissible, withdrawal would take place from the captured territories. My focus was on whether some adjustments were permissible under UNSC Res. 242 (they were) rather than the withdrawal that would take following a post-conflict settlement.

As for the annexation issue, Lord Caradon's position was that such a move prejudged a post-conflict settlement. His personal position on Jerusalem was that the Arabs also needed a "role" there for the status to be resolved.

The more I read about the topic, the more I discover that there is an international consensus about that border, East Jerusalem and West Bank!

According to you, in the future, could the border of Palestine possibly be different from the 1967 border, with perhaps some small land swaps?

 

[mbig]

Re: Coup de Grace

And you'll note the recent arab call for the 1967 borders.
They DIDNT just say let's implement 242, which they know, at the very least is controversial or in reality/at worst against them.

Just as they knew 10 years ago!

"...In 1999, the Palestinian Arabs tried another tactic. Forgetting that it was the Arabs who rejected General Assembly Resolution 181 in 1948 and prevented its implementation, they launched an international diplomatic campaign to revive 181 as a basis to create a Palestinian state.

They want Aother 1947 partition vote because the borders of Israel, under Resolution 181, would be Smaller than the Negotiated borders called for in the later UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, adopted after the Six Day War in 1967 and generally accepted as a reasonable basis for peace with secure borders...

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php

Again, 10 years Later! just in the last few days/2009
They are NOT asking for Resolution 242, they are asking for a NEW Resolution That WOULD be the 1967 Borders!
-

 

[bub]

How impressive bub!
The representatives of India and Mali! Who?
I put up the Drafters Themselves!
They don't need to infer, they Wrote.

And a Nice PARTIAL quote of Wiki admittedly ONLY From "The supporters of 'all' terriitories".

LOL

While My statements are from The Drafters and major Players themselves, yours from the AFTER-THE-FACT WISHES of non-players.

Again, 'all' and 'the' were Specifically REJECTED. The resolution could Not have passed (and DID Fail) with Either article, only passed WITHOUT them.

Gameover.

In fact if you read carefully it's not just "India and Mali", it's at least "Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali", along with India, Syria and Brazil.

And if you read even further, you see that everyone in the Council agreed that it was about all the territories, wit

 

[bub]

In fact if you read carefully it's not just "India and Mali", it's at least "Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali", along with India, Syria and Brazil.

And if you read even further, you see that everyone in the Council agreed that it was about all the territories, wit

hey my post is half deleted!

I continues like this

with the exeption of Israel, which was the only country to argue the contrary (the USA remained silent)

And furthermore, the whole point of the resolution (read the preamble) is that it is not acceptable that territories are gained by war.

 

[donsutherland1]

According to you, in the future, could the border of Palestine possibly be different from the 1967 border, with perhaps some small land swaps?

A border that allows the Palestinians to gain most of the West Bank and incorporates land swaps, among other devices, to assure that the resulting boundaries are secure would be consistent with UNSC Res. 242. My guess is that Israel could retain no more than 10% to perhaps 20% of the West Bank without its going beyond what was permissible under UNSC Res. 242. But I don't believe Israel would seek to push the boundaries of what would be seen as legitimate under UNSC Res. 242. That Israel accepted the Clinton parameters (97% of the West Bank inclusive of land swaps) and Prime Minister Olmert offered up to 99% of the West Bank (inclusive of land swaps) demonstrates the direction Israel would go. Under Prime Minister Netanyahu, my guess is that Israel would cede 90%-95% of the West Bank and also offer some additional land swaps were negotiations to take place and progress toward a final settlement made.

 

[bub]

A border that allows the Palestinians to gain most of the West Bank and incorporates land swaps, among other devices, to assure that the resulting boundaries are secure would be consistent with UNSC Res. 242. My guess is that Israel could retain no more than 10% to perhaps 20% of the West Bank without its going beyond what was permissible under UNSC Res. 242. But I don't believe Israel would seek to push the boundaries of what would be seen as legitimate under UNSC Res. 242. That Israel accepted the Clinton parameters (97% of the West Bank inclusive of land swaps) and Prime Minister Olmert offered up to 99% of the West Bank (inclusive of land swaps) demonstrates the direction Israel would go. Under Prime Minister Netanyahu, my guess is that Israel would cede 90%-95% of the West Bank and also offer some additional land swaps were negotiations to take place and progress toward a final settlement made.

Great!

But what still has to be negociated if Olmert offers 99%? What does he want in exchange? Just the recognition of Israel?

 

[Apocalypse]

Great!

But what still has to be negociated if Olmert offers 99%? What does he want in exchange? Just the recognition of Israel?

The recognition of Israel, the disarming of the militias, the cease of the terrorist attacks against Israel, stopping the incitement against Israelis and Jews, and above all, the recognition that this is a permanent peace agreement.

P.S. I know you're speaking French and all and that it's kinda unfair to ask you of this, but please, stop saying negociated.
It's negotiated.

 

[bub]

The recognition of Israel, the disarming of the militias, the cease of the terrorist attacks against Israel, stopping the incitement against Israelis and Jews, and above all, the recognition that this is a permanent peace agreement.

Of course, all these requests are legitimate.

I'm wondering why it takes half a century to reach such an agreement, since the claims of both parts are really basic and self-evident.

P.S. I know you're speaking French and all and that it's kinda unfair to ask you of this, but please, stop saying negociated.
It's negotiated.

Thanks :mrgreen:
תודה רבה! אל תהססו לספר לי כאשר אני עושה טעויות כאלה!

 

[Apocalypse]

Of course, all these requests are legitimate.

I'm wondering why it takes half a century to reach such an agreement, since the claims of both parts are really basic and self-evident.

Because every once in a while there is a diplomatic crisis between the two parties and they have to restart negotiations all over again.
It's the first time I remember, though, that negotiations are being negotiated on.

Thanks :mrgreen:
תודה רבה! אל תהססו לספר לי כאשר אני עושה טעויות כאלה!

Google translator freaks me off sometimes.

 

[bub]

Because every once in a while there is a diplomatic crisis between the two parties and they have to restart negotiations all over again

Abbas, Bibi and the dude from the Hamas should come to a party at Louvain la Neuve, drink 8 or 9 beers while dancing on Lady Gaga (well not on her, but with her music) and an agreement could be reached! I'm not sure that the border would be totally rational, but at least there would be peace

It's the first time I remember, though, that negotiations are being negotiated on.

It remembers me the cartoon about the difference between Sarkozy and our prime minister and the way they settle conflicts

Sarko: "**** it, get rid of PPDA (a journalist), Domenech and Ireland, you mother****ers!"
Leterme: "Well, today's meeting is about trying to find an agreement about the date of our next meeting whose topic will be how to reach an agreement about the way to establish the method to find the colour of the agenda, if you don't mind"

Google translator freaks me off sometimes.

Who told you it was a translator??? :mrgreen: