• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Original Intent of UN Security Council Resolution 242

creation said:
Why havent you addressed any of the arguments presented?
Click to expand...
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')
 
Last edited:

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.
 
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.
 
.

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


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)
 


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?
 
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
-
 
Last edited:

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"
 

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
 
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:
 
Last edited:

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;

 
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.
 

I read your post but that is not consistant:

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:
 
Last edited:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
bub said:
I'm reading a bit more on this topic, you don't quote everything Lord Caradon said about the 242 resolution.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Re: Coup de Grace


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!
-
 
Last edited:

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
 
Last edited:

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.
 
bub said:
According to you, in the future, could the border of Palestine possibly be different from the 1967 border, with perhaps some small land swaps?
Click to expand...

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?
 
bub said:
Great!

But what still has to be negociated if Olmert offers 99%? What does he want in exchange? Just the recognition of Israel?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Thanks :mrgreen:
תודה רבה! אל תהססו לספר לי כאשר אני עושה טעויות כאלה!
 
bub said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...
Google translator freaks me off sometimes.
 
Apocalypse said:
Because every once in a while there is a diplomatic crisis between the two parties and they have to restart negotiations all over again
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Who told you it was a translator??? :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…