Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

[thesightless]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

outside of the h man above.

the un cannot act on the acts of indivuals that bomb people, much like they couldnt act on mohammed atta, i dont think it is the politicians on the region openly ordering the bombers. that is where i personally see the line. isreal uses the military, a rogue group uses suicide bombers.

the only thing they can do through thier constitution is scold hamas or do something they have never done and go in on an offensive to eliminate hamas military wing.

[davetlv]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

242. it's all in the interpretation. the UN fucked up.

your view is obviously firmly on the opposite side to mine, as you vehemently deny that Israel is breaking any international law.

yawn. can i go now. cheers. bye.

No Hos, its not all in the interpretation - its in the law.

Heres an example. . . .

Two chapters of the UN Charter clarify the powers of the UN Security Council and its resolutions. Resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter - that deals with "Pacific Resolution of Disputes" - are implemented through a process of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration between the parties to a dispute. UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967 is a Chapter VI resolution which, when taken together with Resolution 338, leads to an Israeli withdrawal from territories (not all the territories) that Israel entered in the 1967 Six-Day War, by means of a negotiated settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The resolution is not self-enforced by Israel alone; it requires a negotiating process.

The most severe resolutions of the UN Security Council are those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter - that deal with "Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression." When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council adopted all its resolutions against Iraq under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The implementation of those resolutions was not contingent on Iraqi-Kuwaiti negotiations, for Iraq engaged in a clear-cut act of aggression. Moreover, UN resolutions on Iraq are self-enforcing, requiring Iraq alone to comply with their terms. However, the UN recognized, under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the need for special military measures to be taken if a Chapter VII resolution is ignored by an aggressor.

So now that we are clear on the difference between resolutions at the UN, lets actually look at that 242 you are quoting. . .

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.


Lets look a tthe section i have put into bold - both section equally important.

Whilst it is clear that Israel has not withdrawn from territories occupied in 1967 the Palestinians and other arab nations have not held up their part of the resolution either.

Now, lets look at it another way, Israel has proved 3 times (Sinai, Lebanon and Gaza) that it is prepared to leave territories it has occupied. Not only that, but he withdrawals can happen reletively quickly. Therefore we have proved time and time again that peace and returning land is the only way for survival. However, what have the other countries in the region done to implement 242.

I like the way you accuse Israel of not living up to it obligations under 242, but you say nothing about all the other countries in the region who are jointly obligated.

BTW you have still not managed to prove your earlier comments!

[davetlv]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

the un cannot act on the acts of indivuals that bomb people, much like they couldnt act on mohammed atta, i dont think it is the politicians on the region openly ordering the bombers. that is where i personally see the line. isreal uses the military, a rogue group uses suicide bombers.

But its not rogue groups sighless, its Hamas (soon to be the second largest party in the PA), its Al-aqsa brigade (the military wing of Fatah - the dominant party in the PA). So your claims of it being rogue groups is crap.

Added to the fact that Syria, Iran, Saudi and in the past Iraq pays for the families of homicide bombers for the rest of their lives, proves you are wrong. Neigbouring states are directly to blame for the continuation of homicide bombers.

[thesightless]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

god ur thick. and as far as the comment about the schools being houses for bombs and it being too bad, wow. thats fucked. killing children isnt cool unless they are the ones holding the gun IMHO>

it was a mistake the whoel damn scenario over there and the tit for tat shit that goes on.

from our end, i think its a shame we had to put our noses into the Area just to secure a fuel source

and if it is a out and out political party, then why hasnt isreal just cut the head off the snake and bombed thier main HQ and all associated people/buildings.

i just want the US to get the hell outta the region in all aspects and let it be

[thesightless]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

im not trying to antogonize , just looking for info.

[thesightless]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

and if you use this quopte

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;

then that also means any country that has been bombed, found to be a target of future bombings, now has the right to attack whatever country they deem a threat. so here comes WW3.

[davetlv]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

and if you use this quopte



then that also means any country that has been bombed, found to be a target of future bombings, now has the right to attack whatever country they deem a threat. so here comes WW3.

Not my quote - it UNSC Res 242 which brought to end the Six day war - its also one of the key resolutions used against Israel whilst ignoring the fact that ALL nations in the area who were involved with the attacks on Israel in June 67 should be held accountable to.

My point sightless being that israel is always attacked for not carrying out 242 whilst no one else is. The resolution was meant to bring to an end a war started by Egypt, Jordan et all and ALL parties should be held accountable to it, not just one, and i guess this is where Hos and i differ, i blame everyone, he blames Israel. Go figure!

BTW, i never claimed i was cleaver!!!!

[thesightless]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

when i go look around for work on the situation, i try to do a case and a case against style. i.e. when looking at the israeli / palestinian conflict i try to look at works who support both sides. this one raised an eyebrow. really only because it spoke of the US directly comparing it to your region. go out and look for some anti israeli sentiments then take a sec to try and disect where they come from.

peace !

Finally, I think states could also intervene in the conflict on the grounds that the Israelis are committing acts of state terrorisms and harboring terrorists. When the US went into Afghanistan, the US claimed it was self-defense. But the US also said it was combating terrorism. It was trying to take action against a state that it claimed supported terrorism and harbored terrorists. International humanitarian law defines terrorism as a calculated intent to terrorize the population. The Israelis are arguably terrorizing the Palestinian population. If that is the case, then the government is carrying out an act of terrorism, perhaps to a greater extent than the Afghan government was. Unless the Israelis are punishing the people who are carrying this out, then they are also harboring people who have committed acts of terrorism. If we apply the standards we applied to Afghanistan, I would say that the United States is trying to create international law that allows states to use force against states that harbor terrorists and Israel fits into that category. That would mean that states could use force against Israel to prevent its terrorism and to punish it for harboring terrorists. Any state using force, of course, would have to abide by international humanitarian law, which stresses proportionality and the discriminatory nature of targeting.

[Yao]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

Has anyone even dared to pay attention to the fact that the Israeli attacks are always primarily aimed at identified terrorists, nut just random suspects? And that they are retaliatory in nature rather than unprovoked?

[Hos]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

Not my quote - it UNSC Res 242 which brought to end the Six day war - its also one of the key resolutions used against Israel whilst ignoring the fact that ALL nations in the area who were involved with the attacks on Israel in June 67 should be held accountable to.

My point sightless being that israel is always attacked for not carrying out 242 whilst no one else is. The resolution was meant to bring to an end a war started by Egypt, Jordan et all and ALL parties should be held accountable to it, not just one, and i guess this is where Hos and i differ, i blame everyone, he blames Israel. Go figure!

BTW, i never claimed i was cleaver!!!!

i don't recall giving my opinion on the palestinians, syrians, labanese or egyptians. you asked me why i accused Israel of flaunting international law. nothing to do with blame. so don't put words in my mouth. ta.

[davetlv]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

God forbid Hos, i'd hate to put words into your mouth. But you quoted 242. I pointed out that ALL parties under 242 had not lived up to their requirements, whilst you seem only to mention Israel.

You used 242 as an example of Israel flaunting international law, i proved you wrong (read the text on Chapter 6 and 7 resolutions), also it doesnt really matter whether i deny israel is flaunting internaitonal law or not, you put this statement into the arena on an open forum without the ability to back it up.

I repeat, again, give me one example where Israel is flaunting international law - so far you have quoted the fence and 242 and i have proved you wrong. Believe me Hos there are many many things you can justifialbly have a go at Israel for (if you want a list i'll give you one) but your orginal comments are not backed up by any facts whatsoever, in deed they are nothing more then regurgetated crap put out by anti-semites as a way of bashing Israel - something i thought you were above!

I have no problem with you attacking Israel, but do so with fact not fucking fiction!

[Hos]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

God forbid Hos, i'd hate to put words into your mouth. But you quoted 242. I pointed out that ALL parties under 242 had not lived up to their requirements, whilst you seem only to mention Israel.

You used 242 as an example of Israel flaunting international law, i proved you wrong (read the text on Chapter 6 and 7 resolutions), also it doesnt really matter whether i deny israel is flaunting internaitonal law or not, you put this statement into the arena on an open forum without the ability to back it up.

I repeat, again, give me one example where Israel is flaunting international law - so far you have quoted the fence and 242 and i have proved you wrong. Believe me Hos there are many many things you can justifialbly have a go at Israel for (if you want a list i'll give you one) but your orginal comments are not backed up by any facts whatsoever, in deed they are nothing more then regurgetated crap put out by anti-semites as a way of bashing Israel - something i thought you were above!

I have no problem with you attacking Israel, but do so with fact not fucking fiction!

Supporters of the "all territories" reading claim that the principle usually applied in international law is to adopt the interpretation which best harmonizes the meaning of the differing language texts. Applying this principle to this resolution, one would come to the interpretation that the resolution requires a full withdrawal is compatible with the English text, and is implied by the French text. On the other hand, even if an interpretation requiring only a partial withdrawal is compatible with the English text, it contradicts the French text. Therefore, the interpretation requiring total withdrawal best harmonizes the meaning of the texts, and therefore applying generally accepted rules of legal interpretation under international law.[citation needed]

Other supporters of a full withdrawal argue that the absence of the words "all" or "the" before territories does not mean that Israel can retain some of the territories it captured in 1967. For instance, British solicitor John McHugo argues that the absence of a definite article in the notice "dogs must be kept on a lead" does not imply that "some dogs must be kept on a lead" but clearly means that "all dogs must be kept on a lead." [1] Advocates of this view point to a presumption in International Law that a document should be interpreted in order to make its meaning clear, and interpretations that lead to uncertainty should be avoided. The Israeli claim that resolution 242 requires only a partial withdrawal from territories creates uncertainty arises as to which territories it could retain and which it could withdraw from, and so cannot have been the intention of the Security Council, according to advocates of a full withdrawal.[citation needed]

Some claim that Preambulatory Clause 2, "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" would imply a total withdrawal; this is based on a principle under international law on how to interpret treaties (see art. 31 in the Vienna Convention, entered into force on January 27, 1980), but although preambulatory clauses never include specific directives, they can be used to interpret the operative paragraphs. Under such a view, a withdrawal would include "all territories". 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, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, and as worded by the representative from 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".

So, by your reckoning, India, Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, UAE, Jordan, Argentina and Mali were all anti-semitic at the time?

Like I said, 242 is, most unfortunately, open to interpretation.

[davetlv]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

Love the way you only pick out what you need. The semantic arguements over language, hysterical, fuinny, but hardly the point - my personal opinion, for what its worth, is that israel should withdraw from Jordanian territories it occupied in 1967, but we're not talking about our own opinions are we, were talking facts!

You're misguided in clinging on to 242 as the sole response you have. . . everyone recgonises that for 242 to work both Israel and its neighbours had to do certain things. Both parties failed. Yet you, again, only condem Israel for something its not responsible for.

If we are to take the english resolution Israel has given back territories it occupied in 67, and yet it still is surrounded by neigbours who believe she has no right to exist.

And yet, regardless of whether we include the word the or not, its hardly flaunting as you said.

BTW here is the complete article including the opposing arguement you failed to post when you cribbed your info from wikipedia. Enjoy the article. . . .

The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, ending the state of belligerency then existing between Egypt, Jordan and Syria versus Israel. It insists upon the termination of all states of war in the area; guarantees the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all Middle Eastern nations; and calls for a "just settlement" of the question of the refugees.

The resolution's most important feature is the "land for peace" formula, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors. This was an important advance at the time, considering the fact that there were no peace treaties between any Arab state and Israel until the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in 1979.

For obvious reasons, the U.N. could not force the relevant parties to make a peace agreement, nor would the rather ambiguous resolution have precedence over bilateral negotiations; however the resolution was the focus of numerous semantic disputes.

"Land for peace" served as the basis of the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, in which Israel retreated from the Sinai peninsula (Egypt withdrew its claims to the Gaza Strip). Jordan withdrew its claims for the West Bank shortly after the beginning of the First Intifada, and has signed the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace in 1994, that demarcated the Jordan River as the border line. Throughout the 1990s, there were Israeli-Syrian negotiations regarding a normalization of relations and an Israeli retreat from the Golan Heights but a peace treaty failed to materialize.

The resolution advocates a "just settlement of the refugee problem" but doesn't specifically mention the Palestinians (who were not represented in the debate). This was one of the declared reasons why the PLO rejected the resolution until 1988, when the PLO's legislative body, the PNC voted to recognize Israel within the pre-1967 lines. The UN resolution, however, did serve as a basis for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (Palestinians being represented by the PLO) that led to the Oslo Accords. The Accords' main premise, the eventual creation of Palestinian autonomy in some of the territories captured during the Six-Day War, in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel is obviously reminiscent of the "Land for Peace" principle.

Both Israel and her neighbors accept the legitimacy of 242, although the two sides interpret the resolution to mean quite different things. The two sides also disagree over the implementation of the resolution. Israel generally focuses on the latter part of the resolution first, which calls for the "termination of all states of belligerency" in the area. Thus, the refusal of the Arab states to end the state of war that exists represents a material and continuing breach of 242, making Israeli security control of the territories a continuing necessity. This continued disagreement continues to be reflected even in Israel's peaceful relations with more "moderate" neighbors such as Egypt and Jordan, and is still a major stumbling block in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians -- the former insisting upon an end to terrorism as a prerequisite to negotiations, the latter claiming Israel's continuing violations of 242 as one of the justifications for Palestinian militancy.

After territorial issues, perhaps the most widely disputed element of 242 is the call for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Israel continues to refuse to consider any large-scale resettlement of Palestinian refugees on Israeli territory, claiming that such a move would undermine the Jewish character of the state of Israel and lead to its collapse. Moreover, Israel points to the continued refusal of the Arab nations to compensate Israeli Jews of Arab origin, many of whom were driven out of their home countries after facing the expropriation of virtually all of their property. Israel's official stand at present is that refugees will be resettled either where they currently live, or in a newly constituted Palestinian state at such a time when it is established. Recent evidence suggests that a moderate Palestinian leadership would accept a "symbolic right of return" to Israel in the framework of an overall peace agreement, along with an acknowledgement from Israel of its responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem. However, numerous Palestinian groups with substantial political power have stated their opposition to any agreement that does not allow for a full return of Palestinian refugees to their places of origin within the former Palestine Mandate, regardless of whether those places are currently in Israel proper. This argument reflects an even older conflict over the meaning of the non binding UN Resolution 194, the first UN resolution to deal with the Palestinian refugees. The refugee issue continues to be one of the most intractable facets of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and continues to hamstring efforts on both sides to implement Resolution 242.

Semantic dispute

The interpretation of the resolution has been controversial, in particular the issue of the correct interpretation of Operative Clause 1(i), in which the Security Council calls for

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

The French version of this reads differently:

Retrait des forces arm?es isra?liennes des territoires occup?s lors du r?cent conflit

The Russian version

вывод израильских вооружённых сил с территорий, оккупированных во время недавнего конфликта

In simple terms, the dispute is about whether the Resolution would require Israel to retreat from all the territories it has captured, or whether it would still comply with the resolution by retreating, on mutually agreed terms, only from some of the territories.

The difference between the two version lies in the absence of a definite article ("the") in the English version (so that it means "from some of or all the territories"), while a definite article ("des") is present in the French version, so that it means "from all the territories". The change introduced into the English version was the result of a deliberate amendment made by the Americans (the drafting process being made on the English version, the French being a translation). Nevertheless, as both languages are official languages of the UN, the meaning of the resolution has given no end to controversy. The Russian and the Spanish readings support the English one, but only English and French were the Security Council's working languages, declaredly "equally authentic" (Russian, Spanish and Chinese were official but not the working languages). It is worth noting that Russian has no definite article per se.


Arguments in favor of "all territories" reading

Supporters of the "all territories" reading claim that the principle usually applied in international law is to adopt the interpretation which best harmonizes the meaning of the differing language texts. Applying this principle to this resolution, one would come to the interpretation that the resolution requires a full withdrawal is compatible with the English text, and is implied by the French text. On the other hand, even if an interpretation requiring only a partial withdrawal is compatible with the English text, it contradicts the French text. Therefore, the interpretation requiring total withdrawal best harmonizes the meaning of the texts, and therefore applying generally accepted rules of legal interpretation under international law.[citation needed]

Other supporters of a full withdrawal argue that the absence of the words "all" or "the" before territories does not mean that Israel can retain some of the territories it captured in 1967. For instance, British solicitor John McHugo argues that the absence of a definite article in the notice "dogs must be kept on a lead" does not imply that "some dogs must be kept on a lead" but clearly means that "all dogs must be kept on a lead." [1] Advocates of this view point to a presumption in International Law that a document should be interpreted in order to make its meaning clear, and interpretations that lead to uncertainty should be avoided. The Israeli claim that resolution 242 requires only a partial withdrawal from territories creates uncertainty arises as to which territories it could retain and which it could withdraw from, and so cannot have been the intention of the Security Council, according to advocates of a full withdrawal.[citation needed]

Some claim that Preambulatory Clause 2, "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" would imply a total withdrawal; this is based on a principle under international law on how to interpret treaties (see art. 31 in the Vienna Convention, entered into force on January 27, 1980), but although preambulatory clauses never include specific directives, they can be used to interpret the operative paragraphs. Under such a view, a withdrawal would include "all territories". 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, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, and as worded by the representative from 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".
[edit]

Arguments against "all territories" reading

Opposers of the "all territories" reading remind that the UN Security Council declined to adopt a draft resolution worded in this way prior to the adoption of Resolution 242.

They claim that in interpreting a resolution of an organ of an international organization, one must look to the process of the negotiation and adoption of the text. This would make the text in English, the language of the discussion, take precedence.

Moreover, according to them the nature of the French language requires the use of a definite article in places where English does not, so the inclusion of the definite article in the French text does not imply what the inclusion of the definite article in the English text would. Finally, as they claim that the only reason for the re-appearance of this reading was translator error, which obviously does not justify the change in the document's meaning. According to the legal principle "expressio unis et exclusio alterus" (which states that the terms excluded from a law are excluded intentionally, and the interpretation of that law should be accordingly altered) it could be argued against the "all territoires" reading.

Opponents of the "all territories" reading also point to statements made by American and British officials involved in the drafting of UN Resolution 242. These officials rejected Arab states' request that the word "all" be placed before "territories" and have since stated the following about UN Res 242:

* Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1965-1967):

"It calls for respect and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every state in the area. Since Israel never denied the sovereignty of its neighbouring countries, this language obviously requires those countries to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty."
"The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal." ("The Meaning of 242", June 10, 1977)

* Lord Caradon, author of the draft resolution that was adopted as 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 )

* Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969):

"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)
"Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949." ("The Truth About 242" - November 5, 1990)

* Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. President (1963-1968 )

"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace." (September 10, 1968 )

Implementation

On November 23, 1967, The Secretary General appointed Gunnar Jarring as Special Envoy to negotiate the implementation of the resolution with the parties, the so-called Jarring Mission. The governments of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon recognized Jarring's appointment and agreed to participate in his shuttle diplomacy, although they differed on key points of interpretation of the resolution. The government of Syria rejected Jarring's mission on grounds that total Israeli withdrawal was a prerequisite for further negotiations. The talks under Jarring's auspices lasted until 1973, but bore no results. In the meantime, the United States proposed the so-called Rogers plan, which was also rejected by all parties. After 1973, the Jarring mission was replaced by bilateral and multilateral peace conferences.

[Hos]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

I agree all parties failed. A lot of countries are breaking international law in that region. Israel included.

[Hos]

Re: Attn Hos: Is Israel flaunting International Law?

btw dave

Flaunt: Display proudly; act ostentatiously or pretentiously