Reply #242: Yeah, that'd be because it's not there... [View All]

[Violet_Crumble]

Neither the first paragraph of the preamble, nor the first paragraph of the Resolution itself state that withdrawal must be based on a negotiated peace.

Here's the text of the Resolution

NOVEMBER 22, 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

Interestingly enough, it also doesn't contain a word that says if American keyboard warriors claim Israelis are really scared, then that's a justification for continuing the Occupation. I know. There I go again introducing facts into it and in doing so portraying Israel in a very ugly light! ;)

And yet again yr displaying an inability to comprehend what I say. I never said anything about 'immediately'. You should really quit trying to tell others what they supposedly believe and what they're supposedly arguing and just stick to telling people what yr own views are...

What I find hard to understand and I doubt I'll get any assistance from you in trying to understand, is how someone can claim to oppose the Occupation, but then spend an inordinate amount of time arguing that the Occupation is moral and justified. If someone thinks the Occupation is moral, doesn't that mean they're supporting immorality if they say 'I oppose the occupation', even if that short sound-byte is only uttered a few times?