Resolution 242: It does NOT mean withdrawal to 1967 lines

[abu afak]

Hamas is the one preventing/refusing pan-Palestinian elections, while Fatah wants them.

we all know why too, Tinhead's heros are unpopular Islamists. Like him.
-

Abbas is holding up the elections. He illegally changed the election law. Basically, his law states that anyone who does not agree with the PLO will not be allowed to run .

And Contrary to Tinhead's Daily assertion.. Hamas is NOT the elected govt of Gaza.

They won the Local PA elections in the area, Then Seized power. They have NO sovereign power or rights. No legitimacy as a 'govt'.
-

 

[California Girl]

What are you seeking to communicate to us here on the USMB?

The ACTUAL meaning of Resolution 242.. as opposed to the one parroted and accepted by many.
To debunk a Myth.
This is Apparent to anyone with Half a Brain.
Note the STRING TITLE.
"Resolution 242: it Does NOT mean withdrawal to the 1967 lines."

What is the purpose of your EMPTY, Stupid post?
Harassment with nonsense/No content.


EDIT:
The Below Poster, PYMCO_PILGRIM is an obtuse Trolling Moron.
3 (4) posts now and NO On Topic content.
Please Report this Sabotage.

-
-

My, we are a tad touchy, aren't we?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hamas is the one preventing/refusing pan-Palestinian elections, while Fatah wants them.

we all know why too, Tinhead's heros are unpopular Islamists. Like him.
-

Abbas is holding up the elections. He illegally changed the election law. Basically, his law states that anyone who does not agree with the PLO will not be allowed to run .

And Contrary to Tinhead's Daily assertion.. Hamas is NOT the elected govt of Gaza.

They won the Local PA elections in the area, Then Seized power. They have NO sovereign power or rights. No legitimacy as a 'govt'.
-

I never said it was. Hamas is the elected government in all of Palestine.

 

[JStone]

Abbas is holding up the elections. He illegally changed the election law. Basically, his law states that anyone who does not agree with the PLO will not be allowed to run .

And Contrary to Tinhead's Daily assertion.. Hamas is NOT the elected govt of Gaza.

They won the Local PA elections in the area, Then Seized power. They have NO sovereign power or rights. No legitimacy as a 'govt'.
-

I never said it was. Hamas is the elected government in all of Palestine.

Impossible since Palestine, invented by the British after WW I to denote the British Mandate, ceased to exist in 1948 with termination of the Mandate and Israeli statehood.

If you can find any Palestine in this UN map, you get extra play time in the sandbox http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

 

[P F Tinmore]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ai-Udti1M]On The Map with Avi Lewis: Gaza Coup d'Etat? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JStone]

Philip Hitti, Arab historian, Princeton University professor, advisor to the Arab delegation which established the United Nations representing the Institute of Arab American Affairs testifying before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946...

The Sunday schools have done a great deal of harm to us, becauseby smearing the walls of the rooms with maps of Palestine, they areassociating it in the mind of the average American--and I may say perhaps the Englishman too---with the Jews. Sir, there is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.

 

[JStone]

Abbas is holding up the elections. He illegally changed the election law. Basically, his law states that anyone who does not agree with the PLO will not be allowed to run .

And Contrary to Tinhead's Daily assertion.. Hamas is NOT the elected govt of Gaza.

They won the Local PA elections in the area, Then Seized power. They have NO sovereign power or rights. No legitimacy as a 'govt'.
-

I never said it was. Hamas is the elected government in all of Palestine.

The democratic government of Hamastan

Hamas Bans Gaza Students Studying Abroad

Gaza's militant Hamas rulers have banned eight teenage students with scholarships to study in the U.S. from leaving the territory, a Palestinian rights group said Wednesday.

The move appeared to be part of an intensified Hamas campaign against independent groups that they view as a challenge to their rule and against activities that believe promote a Western lifestyle.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights said the eight students were granted AMIDEAST scholarships, a program that educates talented teenagers from the Middle East and North Africa for a year in the U.S. At the end of the year, students return to their home countries to finish their education. The students were granted scholarships based on their academic achievements.

In a statement, the rights group said Hamas' education minister rejected a travel request by the teenager's parents for "social and cultural reasons." It also accused Hamas of breaching the parents' right to educate their children as they choose.

Hamas would not confirm the order, much as it has in the past with similar orders travel bans on Gaza residents.

But the parents of 15-year-old Aboud Alshatari said their son was traveling to the border Wednesday when Hamas police turned him away, saying the Education Ministry refused to let him leave Gaza. Alshatari was slated to attend school in North Carolina.

The ban comes a day after a network of aid groups in Gaza criticized Hamas for forcing aid workers and employees of civil society groups to register with them before traveling for work outside the Gaza Strip. And last week, Hamas shut down the U.S.-financed International Medical Corps after it refused to submit to a Hamas audit.

The Iranian-backed Hamas overran Gaza from the secular Palestinian Fatah party in bloody street battles in 2007. Since then, Hamas has slowly imposed its radical interpretation of Islam on residents of the Gaza Strip — a world view that is even more stern than what traditionally religious conservative Gazan's follow.

Other Hamas crackdowns include trying to ban male barbers from cutting women's hair and forbidding women from smoking in public and outlawing scantly clad female mannequins.

Hamas Bans Gaza Students Studying Abroad - ABC News

 

[abu afak]

Philip Hitti, Arab historian, Princeton University professor, advisor to the Arab delegation which established the United Nations representing the Institute of Arab American Affairs testifying before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946...

The Sunday schools have done a great deal of harm to us, becauseby smearing the walls of the rooms with maps of Palestine, they areassociating it in the mind of the average American--and I may say perhaps the Englishman too---with the Jews. Sir, there is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.

"Absolutely not"

 

[P F Tinmore]

Philip Hitti, Arab historian, Princeton University professor, advisor to the Arab delegation which established the United Nations representing the Institute of Arab American Affairs testifying before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946...

The Sunday schools have done a great deal of harm to us, becauseby smearing the walls of the rooms with maps of Palestine, they areassociating it in the mind of the average American--and I may say perhaps the Englishman too---with the Jews. Sir, there is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.

"Absolutely not"

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[docmauser1]

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

Cool, so, who was that imam, sultan, sheikh, shakh, president, prime-minister of that "state of palestine"?

 

[abu afak]

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

Cool, so, who was that imam, sultan, sheikh, shakh, president, prime-minister of that "state of palestine"?

If it was up to Tinhead, Osama bin Laden or Ahmadinejad would be in charge of Palestine and eliminating the region's Jews.

He rejects moderates who don't want Genocide.
-
-

 

[JStone]

Philip Hitti, Arab historian, Princeton University professor, advisor to the Arab delegation which established the United Nations representing the Institute of Arab American Affairs testifying before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946...

"Absolutely not"

A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You still peddling that bogus Wiki article, Pinocchio? You see any Palestine on this UN map? http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

No milk and cookies for you.

 

[abu afak]

So negotiations May start after Netanyahoo is out of office and the Palestinians have a single leadership-pan-Palestine elections.
Somewhere maybe 2017 or so.
maybe.
-
-

 

[abu afak]

What are you seeking to communicate to us here on the USMB?

The ACTUAL meaning of Resolution 242.. as opposed to the one parroted and accepted by many.
To debunk a Myth.
This is Apparent to anyone with Half a Brain.
Note the STRING TITLE.
"Resolution 242: it Does NOT mean withdrawal to the 1967 lines."

What is the purpose of your EMPTY, Stupid post?
Harassment with nonsense/No content.

EDIT:
The Below Poster, PYMCO_PILGRIM is an obtuse Trolling Moron.
3 (4) posts now and NO On Topic content.
Please Report this Sabotage.
-
-

My, we are a tad touchy, aren't we?

Not at all.
Just have to repeat things indefinitely for some.
thx

 

[abu afak]

So Brillo Really...
I have some BIG News for you...
Not News for me or a few others, but you.
I always find the "Israel should comply with 242" CLOWNS/AMATEURS to be amusing.

Lord Caradon, an 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

above quote; Peace encylopedia
Below ones sourced at post bottom.


"..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."

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."
(S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)

http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242b.html​

 

[Billo_Really]

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..." (UNSCesolution 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).

THE GOLAN HEIGHTS AND THE FACTS - UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 - A WITHDRAWAL TO THE 1949/1967 LINES?



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.

(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.
-

Who gives a shit what Israel needs for defensive purposes?

You can't hold onto land seized in a war. Period.

And 242 is telling them to get the fuck off that land.

It doesn't matter whose land it is. It only matters that it isn't Israel's.

 

[abu afak]

Who gives a shit what Israel needs for defensive purposes?

The Resolution called for NEW "secure and recognized borders" .. recognizing the Old ones were Not legitimate.

You can't hold onto land seized in a war. Period.

Which Land?
Th British won it from the Ottomans and so-on and so-forth backwards.
In 1948 the UN attempted to give some to the local Arabs, recent taken the name 'Palestinians'. They REFUSED The land and started a War (1948) in favor of getting the whole thing.
They LOST.
Jordan ANNEXED the West Bank and Egypt got Gaza.
There was NO 'Palestine'.
Still NO/NEVER a Legal sovereign.

Additionally, In the Original 1964 PLO Charter, they Rejected the West Bank.

In 1967 Israel won the West Bank form JORDAN, there still wasn't/Never was a 'Palestine'.
Only when King Hussein Lost it did he cede it to Palestinians', but the land was ALWAYS won by War.
Oops!

and 242 is telling them to get the fuck off that land.

Nope Goofy it isn't.
English much Brillo Head?
Res 242 calls for NEGOTIATIONS for NEW "secure and recognized" boundaries, always assuming Israel would get a small new Buffer.
Withdrawal from "all" and "the" territories specifically Rejected.
Read Much?
DUH!

It doesn't matter whose land it is. It only matters that it isn't Israel's.

Of course it does Clown boy.
The Land is "disputed" pending 242-Directed negotiations.
That would be the same 242 you IGNORANTLY invoke.
Again, it was always intended by the Framers that Israel would NOT make a complete withdrawal
(see above)

You Angry CLOWN.
You throw yourself around showing your trite Ignorance and Juvenile Bigotry.
You know NOTHING about this conflict.
Just another 'anti-Cough-Zionist'.
-

 

[Billo_Really]

The Resolution called for NEW "secure and recognized borders" .. recognizing the Old ones were Not legitimate.

It didn't say anything about "NEW" borders.

Which Land?

The land Zionists were migrating into with their racist, apartheid policies.

Th British won it from the Ottomans and so-on and so-forth backwards.

Then they left because Zionist terrorist groups started targeting them by bombing civilian infrastructure.

In 1948 the UN attempted to give some to the local Arabs, recent taken the name 'Palestinians'.

What person in their right mind would give up 2/3's of their land to someone who just moved into the area?

They REFUSED The land and started a War (1948) in favor of getting the whole thing.

No, they went in there to ensure the inalienable rights of the indigenous arabs who had been living there for generations.

They LOST.
Jordan ANNEXED the West Bank and Egypt got Gaza.
There was NO 'Palestine'.

It's irrelevant what name you call it.

The people already living in that area had rights too.

Still NO/NEVER a Legal sovereign.

And that includes the creation of Israel.

Additionally, In the Original 1964 PLO Charter, they Rejected the West Bank.

Like I said, it doesn't matter who owns the land, it only matters that it's not Israel's.

In 1967 Israel won the West Bank form JORDAN, there still wasn't/Never was a 'Palestine'.
Only when King Hussein Lost it did he cede it to Palestinians', but the land was ALWAYS won by War.
Oops!

242 clearly states you cannot acquire land by force. That is the over-riding principle here and there's nothing you can do that will change that. In fact, that's the first thing it states!

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war

Nope Goofy it isn't.
English much Brillo Head?
Res 242 calls for NEGOTIATIONS for NEW "secure and recognized" boundaries, always assuming Israel would get a small new Buffer.
Withdrawal from "all" and "the" territories specifically Rejected.
Read Much?
DUH!

Like I said, it doesn't say "NEW".

Of course it does Clown boy.
The Land is "disputed" pending 242-Directed negotiations.
That would be the same 242 you IGNORANTLY invoke.
Again, it was always intended by the Framers that Israel would NOT make a complete withdrawal
(see above)

They're not disputed, they're "occupied".

And 242 calls for the end of that occupation.

Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict

It tells Israel's armed forces to leave, not the Palestinian's armed forces.

You Angry CLOWN.
You throw yourself around showing your trite Ignorance and Juvenile Bigotry.
You know NOTHING about this conflict.
Just another 'anti-Cough-Zionist'.
-

And you make a very good German!

 

[Kondor3]

What it means in the real world...

 

[Billo_Really]

Hey abu afak , did you delete that post? I was just getting ready to rip it to shreds...


...starting with this...






...and ending with this....





However, if you deleted that post, then consider this one rhetorical (requiring no answer).