- Dec 6, 2009
- 77,778
- 4,172
- 1,815
Excuses, of course.had you done so, you would be aware that while UNGA resolution was indeed nonbinding when it was written, it did become a binding agreement later when israel agreed to abide by the conditions of that resolution. in fact, the very fact that israel has failed and continues to fail to abide by the conditions set forth in UNGA resolution 181 might actually call into question this much touted "right to exist", at least as a member state of the UN, into question. you might also find the paragraph that virtually exonertes the arab states for rejecting UNGA assembly 181.
Deach does not want to acknowlege the fact that a WAR intervened between resolution 181 and the establishment of the armistice line He also fails to acknowlege the fact the NEITHER SIDE agreed to the details of the UN non binding resolutions Somehow he decided that ONLY ISRAEL MUST bad news deach I am no lawyer but the system had been explained to me regarding "agreements" thus ----it is always a good idea to fullfill you side of the bargain at first------but if the other side persists in NOT DOING SO----the agreement is can be nullified " bad news Deach----the war did nullify not only overt agreements but even more so the IMPLIED agreements you claim are UNILATERALLY Israel's responsiblity to fulfill But you have underscored the FACT that borders were never actually defined. The way you describe things DEACH-----a new war could mean WINNER TAKES ALL which ---of course is the outcome you had in mind all along ----along with your hero GAMAL ABDUL NASSER-------did you cry June 1967? I recall one of the arab diplomats did ------was that you?
Resolution 181 had to be approved by both sides. Implementing the partition without the approval of the Palestinians would have violated their right to self determination. That is why it was rejected by the Security Council.