Quote:
Originally posted by tw
I see no arrogance nor insult directed your way.
|
No post is necessarily irrelevant. As I said, I do not agree with Russotto's rationale; however, I understand how it may have been deduced. It's not like it was some out-of-nowhere thought. After all, we still have a conquest from the Spanish-American war...Puerto Rico.
I've read 242 several times, and if someone is not completely aware of just whose land was originally whose, it is a bit confusing. Truth be told, you would really have to know about the original partition plan from the late 40s to really understand 242. It is NOT overly specific.
As intelligent as most people here are, I would wager that several of them have no clue as to what Resolution 242 is. I haven't heard it brought up recently here on the Cellar (or in the news).
Quote:
|
Previously, search engines would not locate UN 242. How did you find it?
|
On the UN's
website. It's actually takes a bit of digging. I tried to do a search on their engine, but it only gives articles that reference 242. On one of them, I saw the year that 242 was issued (1967). So, I went into the Security Council resolutions section, and looked up the ones from 1967. You can also access it via Google, by typing in "Resolution 242."
Ironically, I just did that, and I came across this interpretation from the
Jewish Virtual Library. From this interpretation, it would seem that Israel is playing dumb. A good example of how 242 can be misread, or at least interpreted in a different manner than we might expect.