Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7030)

Florian 09-17-2011 02:29 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 225940)
On the contrary, English affords a precise expressive range that most other languages lack. For example, Russian does not have articles ("a", "the"), either definite or indefinite. So there is no way that the Russian text can convey the difference between "territories" and "the territories". French has the opposite problem, that the article is obligatory. It would have been ungrammatical for the French text to say "Retrait des forces armées israéliennes territoires occupés lors du récent conflit." It is obligatory to write "des territoires", which is the correct idiomatic rendering of the English "territories". A minor confusion in French is that the word "des" is itself ambiguous, because it means both "of the" or "from the" as well as "some".

I happen to be bilingual, so I don't need an elementary lesson in French from you. But in this case French is clearer. There is nothing ambiguous in the quoted sentence, except that you omitted the "des" before "territoires."

And thanks for not answering my question.

bbbeard 09-17-2011 02:35 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 225974)
You and your source are just wrong.

Heh. "We don't need no stinkin' sources!"

The French text was the direct idiomatic translation of the English. The alternatives you propose would not have been. The English text was the one voted on. The French text was not. You're clinging to some mighty thin reeds, there. You have no argument. You need to get beyond denial and move into the next stage of grief.

Florian 09-17-2011 02:51 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Ledocs, your translation of the French sentence is the only possible, the only correct one. It cannot possibly mean "withdrawal from some of the occupied territories" It can only mean "withdrawal from the occupied terrritories." It would also be foreign to the French diplomatic mind to say something so vague as "some of the territories" without specifying which ones. In any case, to say that you would completely rewrite the sentence.

Perhaps you could say: Le retrait de certains territoires occupés.

Or: Le retrait des territoires occupés à l'exception de tous les territoires dont Israël ne veut pas se retirer.....

Don Zeko 09-17-2011 02:59 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 225976)
Heh. "We don't need no stinkin' sources!"

The French text was the direct idiomatic translation of the English. The alternatives you propose would not have been. The English text was the one voted on. The French text was not. You're clinging to some mighty thin reeds, there. You have no argument. You need to get beyond denial and move into the next stage of grief.

You've declared victory, now can you go home?

Florian 09-17-2011 03:01 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 225971)
I have no problem reading the French text as mirroring the English. As I pointed out, the definite article is obligatory in French, and therefore retains the ambiguity of the English text.

No it does not retain the ambiguity of the English text, and by dint of repeating this you are showing either that you are monolingual like most of your compatriots, or that you are monomaniacal. That figures: I have never met an uncritical supporter of Israel who was not a monomaniac.

Sulla the Dictator 09-17-2011 04:00 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225946)
Yes, just like how 3 or 4 million or even 1.9 million is exactly the same as zero.

It is zero net jobs.

Quote:

But let's face it, long term thirty year jobs are going the way of the dodo, and this was happening well before Obama imposed socialist shariah law.
I don't know about that. There are obviously going to be "thirty year jobs" regardless of how bad things get. However, ten year jobs are perfectly fair to expect. Five year jobs are fine for considering "real jobs". If Obama gives a billion dollar extension to summer workers on Coney Island, he isn't "saving jobs".

bbbeard 09-17-2011 04:04 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 225975)
I happen to be bilingual, so I don't need an elementary lesson in French from you.

Good. I could use a lesson from you. How would you translate the following English sentences into French?

(1) He painted the portraits.
(2) He has painted portraits.
(3) He has painted the portraits.

I went to Google translate to do this but I'm not sure the results are what a native French speaker would say.

Florian 09-17-2011 04:24 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 225981)
Good. I could use a lesson from you. How would you translate the following English sentences into French?

(1) He painted the portraits.
(2) He has painted portraits.
(3) He has painted the portraits.

I went to Google translate to do this but I'm not sure the results are what a native French speaker would say.

I think French would prefer "faire un portrait, des portraits" but to answer your question:

1. Il a peint les portraits. In the historical past (le passé simple) used only in writing: Il peignit les portraits. For example: Lucas Cranach peignit le portrait de Martin Luther, or better: Cranach fit le portrait de Martin Luther.
2. Il a peint des portraits.
3. Il a peint les portraits.

Ocean 09-17-2011 05:20 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 225977)
Or: Le retrait des territoires occupés à l'exception de tous les territoires dont Israël ne veut pas se retirer.....

Heh. That would have been prescient.

AemJeff 09-17-2011 06:11 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 225988)
Heh. That would have been prescient.

Prescient tense?

Ocean 09-17-2011 06:27 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 225992)
Prescient tense?

C'est ça aussi.

Unit 09-17-2011 07:40 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225958)
Well, if the above was true, it's even worse, IMHO, because this is "not meant as a factual statement" territory. It's a statement of faith, and not of fact at all. I had assumed/hoped there was an empiricial component to the statement and one could evaluate it with evidence.

But as to why I went with the definition of "net jobs" that Sulla was using rather than the usual definition of "net" or the above statement of faith, was because Sulla was the most vocal of Perry's defenders, and I assumed would produce the most generous reading of him.




I may not be understanding you correctly, but doesn't the above presume that the money people get from their government jobs doesn't make its way back into the "private" economy through normal household expenditures, etc.?

There's no such thing as hard fact or data in this context. When people talk about jobs created they don't actually count them (a teacher here a nurse there etc...): they're estimates based on models that are fit with older data etc... they're projections that assume certain relations between aggregate variables etc...It's not math or accounting, it's pure theory.

AemJeff 09-17-2011 08:02 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 225998)
There's no such thing as hard fact or data in this context. When people talk about jobs created they don't actually count them (a teacher here a nurse there etc...): they're estimates based on models that are fit with older data etc... they're projections that assume certain relations between aggregate variables etc...It's not math or accounting, it's pure theory.

That seems a strange complaint coming from you, Unit.

miceelf 09-17-2011 08:51 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 225998)
It's not math or accounting, it's pure theory.

So, you agree with my "statement of faith" characterization, then?

Unit 09-18-2011 12:10 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 226003)
So, you agree with my "statement of faith" characterization, then?

I think it's a false dichotomy: it's not hard-fact vs faith, it's theory vs theory. Some projections based on certain types of models that have all kinds of assumptions embedded in them give a number of created jobs, but it's not something that gets "calculated", it's more of a prediction based on trends and a model.

Now, I know there are studies that show that half the jobs the govt created went to people that were already employed (there you see the need to talk about "net jobs"), while the assumption is always that the job created are going to the unemployed (idle resources). But I'm not sure what the methodology is there. Again I don't think it's as simple as counting, I'd have to check into that.

bbbeard 09-18-2011 12:51 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 225982)
I think French would prefer "faire un portrait, des portraits" but to answer your question:

1. Il a peint les portraits. In the historical past (le passé simple) used only in writing: Il peignit les portraits. For example: Lucas Cranach peignit le portrait de Martin Luther, or better: Cranach fit le portrait de Martin Luther.
2. Il a peint des portraits.
3. Il a peint les portraits.

Thanks. I was unsure of the Google translation, which translates all three to "Il a peint des portraits." But your translation makes the point as well, which is that "He painted the portraits" and "He has painted the portraits" to the same French sentence, even though the two English sentences mean two different things. Similarly, with 242, the ostensible question seems to be whether the phrase "withdraw from territories" and "withdraw from the territories" are translated to the same French phrase. This is a different question from how "Retrait... des territoires" translates back into English.

Another example which might illustrate the situation regarding articles might be comparing

(1) He liked fast cars.
(2) He liked the fast cars.

which, as I understand it, both translate to "Il aimait les voitures rapides." Is that how you would translate these sentences?

Florian 09-18-2011 06:08 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 226033)
Thanks. I was unsure of the Google translation, which translates all three to "Il a peint des portraits." But your translation makes the point as well, which is that "He painted the portraits" and "He has painted the portraits" to the same French sentence, even though the two English sentences mean two different things. Similarly, with 242, the ostensible question seems to be whether the phrase "withdraw from territories" and "withdraw from the territories" are translated to the same French phrase. This is a different question from how "Retrait... des territoires" translates back into English. ?

I have no idea what you are driving at. The fact that French uses the "passé composé" for talking about two kinds of past actions* has no bearing at all on the translation of the phrase in 242, which is unambiguous: "des" is the elision of de+ les = of the, from the. It is not a quantifier. So it means: "withdrawal from the occupied territories" and can mean nothing else. To say "withdrawal from occupied territories" (ambiguous in English) you would have to resolve the ambiguity first: Does the sentence mean all or some of the territories? If the latter, you could say "le retrait de l'armée israëlienne de certains territoires occupés. French does not allow for any ambiguity here.

"Des" is also used as an indefinite quantifier, before nouns, where English either uses "some" or nothing at all, but that is not the case here.

Il a des soucis d'argent= he has money worries, concerns.

*In fact, the French "passé composé" does not really correspond to the English present perfect, but that is another can of worms.


Quote:

Another example which might illustrate the situation regarding articles might be comparing

(1) He liked fast cars.
(2) He liked the fast cars.

which, as I understand it, both translate to "Il aimait les voitures rapides." Is that how you would translate these sentences?
Without any other context, "Il aimait les voitures rapides" can only mean: He liked (or used to like) fast cars. French always uses the definite article when making generalizations.

It is true that you would translate the second sentence by the same words, but what does it mean? Who would say it? In what context? As it stands, it is indeterminate in meaning. The definite article delimits a certain set of cars (the fast cars he saw yesterday, the fast cars of Hollywood stars etc.). So either the sentence refers to some previously mentioned fast cars or the definite article is just hanging in the air.

ledocs 09-18-2011 01:14 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
I said:

Quote:

My point is, and was, that Kessler, who claims to be familiar with the diplomatic history of 242, in which you also claim to be interested, says that it is quite controversial. He implies that the omission of the definite article from the English text we are arguing about has given rise to a lot of controversy, an assertion which you appear to be denying. Why do I have to repeat this point for someone who went to MIT and has to condescend to explain the most elementary things to us simpletons?
bbb replied:

Quote:

You may be repeating this point, but it's not true. You say "Kessler.. says that it is quite controversial". Point me to the paragraph where he uses the word "controversy" or "controversial". I can't find it. At worst he points out there is a view for those "people not trained in the nuances of Middle East diplomacy", and a contrary "expert" view, which he explains in his column and I have explained in this thread.

"He implies that the omission of the definite article from the English text we are arguing about has given rise to a lot of controversy" -- where are you seeing this in what he wrote? Give us the quote, not what you think the quote says, and I will try to untangle it for you.
Here, as requested, is the relevant passage from Kessler (bold added):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...aT7G_blog.html

Quote:

1. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.
2. 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.

Since the resolution did not say “the territories,” it has become a full-time employment act for generations of diplomats.
This sentence implies to me that some diplomats (and presumably, also, diplomatic historians) have argued that the English text should be interpreted to mean "all territories." If all diplomats (and diplomatic historians) agreed that the English text can only mean "some of the territories occupied...," that text could not possibly be the equivalent of a "full-time employment act for generations of diplomats," correct? This sentence implies to me, unequivocally, that whatever Rostow, Goldberg and Lord C may have thought, wanted, or intended, their text did not result in a settled interpretation. I took the liberty of glossing Kessler's sentence to mean that there is "controversy" about the correct interpretation of the English text, controversy that is due to the omission of the definite article, controversy about whether "territories" means "some of the occupied territories" or "all of the occupied territories." I am astounded that you could not find the sentence to which I was referring on your own.

bbbeard 09-18-2011 04:57 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 226080)
I have no idea what you are driving at.

Perhaps I should reiterate that at this point we've drifted far afield from whether David Corn is justified in his hyperventilation on Middle East policy.

But I find this edifying in its own right, so I'd like to continue, if you have the patience. What I am driving at is that articles play a somewhat different role in French grammar than they do in English. So in English, "cars" and "the cars" represent different thoughts, while in French there can be no such distinction, because nouns are invariably assigned an article, aren't they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 226080)
French does not allow for any ambiguity here.

So there is no way of composing a French phrase which is equivalent to "withdraw from territories", which encodes a deliberate ambiguity? That would seem to disqualify French for use in a diplomatic context. Note that "withdraw from territories" is not the same as "withdraw from some of the territories", which you keep offering as a back-translated substitute from the French.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 226080)
It is true that you would translate the second sentence by the same words, but what does it mean? Who would say it? In what context? As it stands, it is indeterminate in meaning.

Most sentences are indeterminate in meaning, without a concrete context. The point is that a given sentence, by virtue of its word choice and construction, can reasonably apply to only a subset of possible circumstances, and the constructions (1) "He liked fast cars" and (2) "He liked the fast cars" work with different subsets of possible circumstances, which is how we know they mean different things.

Do you really not understand that there are circumstances where (2) is applicable and preferable to (1)? I'm beginning to doubt that you are really bilingual, at least if English is one of your claimed languages... :) For example, one might use (2) to describe the reaction of one's 8-year-old son to his first live NASCAR race, for example, and (1) would be less preferable. Or one might use (1) to sum up the life of a recently deceased NASCAR driver, and (2) would be less preferable. These sentences mean different things, although the only difference in word choice and construction is the use and placement of the definite article. One might come up with two different sentences in French that convey these two different thoughts, but by your own translation those two French sentences would differ by more than the inclusion or exclusion of the definite article.

If you accept this, then it would appear that you have to accept the conclusion that articles in French and English play different roles in their respective grammars. To me, this goes without saying, but I am providing a long-winded explanation because you seem to be resisting this point and I'd like to understand why.

Ocean 09-18-2011 05:14 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 226105)
So there is no way of composing a French phrase which is equivalent to "withdraw from territories", which encodes a deliberate ambiguity? That would seem to disqualify French for use in a diplomatic context. Note that "withdraw from territories" is not the same as "withdraw from some of the territories", which you keep offering as a back-translated substitute from the French.

Why would a language that requires less ambiguity be disqualified from diplomatic use? I would think it's quite the contrary. The more exact, the less ambiguous, the better.

But any of the languages discussed here, English or French, have ways of being less ambiguous by adding other qualifiers. The problem is that in the case being discussed, in its English version, it was left ambiguous. It is surprising since legal language tends to be purposefully exact about what's included or excluded in the terms of an agreement.

The answer to this puzzle is not going to be found by discussing which language is better or worse, which in essence is a subjective determination. Each language has tools to be more or less exact, to compensate for what's lacking in its grammar. The answer to the UN resolution will have to come from other written documents which spell out the spirit of the resolution as it was originally intended, IMO.

bbbeard 09-18-2011 06:02 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 226110)
Why would a language that requires less ambiguity be disqualified from diplomatic use? I would think it's quite the contrary. The more exact, the less ambiguous, the better.

But any of the languages discussed here, English or French, have ways of being less ambiguous by adding other qualifiers. The problem is that in the case being discussed, in its English version, it was left ambiguous. It is surprising since legal language tends to be purposefully exact about what's included or excluded in the terms of an agreement.

The answer to this puzzle is not going to be found by discussing which language is better or worse, which in essence is a subjective determination. Each language has tools to be more or less exact, to compensate for what's lacking in its grammar. The answer to the UN resolution will have to come from other written documents which spell out the spirit of the resolution as it was originally intended, IMO.

I would say your premise, that less ambiguity is better for diplomacy, is mistaken. I'm not saying that more ambiguity is better for diplomacy, either, only that there are circumstances that require clarity, and circumstances that require ambiguity, or at least, non-specificity.

As I remarked in a previous comment, diplomacy is not the law. The Security Council is neither court nor executive nor legislature. (For that matter, legal English is not English, either, but that's a completely different topic.) The Security Council is a forum for the international community to substitute diplomacy for armed conflict.

What the gray eminences on the Security Council understood is that it was not their mission to arrive at a finalized agreement for the international boundaries and security arrangements of the Middle East in the wake of the Six Day War. They understood that the 1949 boundaries of Israel were both arbitrary and indefensible, probably in actuality, but most certainly in the Israeli view. They also understood that leaving Israel in possession of the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan was also not an acceptable status quo for the Arab states. The formulation of 242 was a balancing act that required them to reconcile the important objectives of all parties -- including the Security Council itself -- and provide a context for diplomacy between the parties to the conflict to advance towards a solution. The Russian approach -- which simply mandated a return to the pre-1967 border -- did not meet these objectives, since it closed out diplomacy from the Israeli perspective. The Russians withdrew their draft resolution without having a vote.

You seem to want the Security Council to act as a court in these proceedings, issuing clear proclamations like "you move here", "you give this up", "you surrender your armaments at this checkpoint", "you stay 200 yards away from any bar mitzvahs". It doesn't work that way. At best the Security Council can create the environment for parties to a conflict to show up at the bargaining table instead of the war room. The Israelis weren't going to show up if a return to the pre-1967 borders was the precondition for talks. The Arabs weren't going to show up if the post-Six-Day-War boundaries were the de facto new realities. What 242 means is that Israel could not expect to hold on to what they seized in the Six Day War, and the Arab states could not expect to have peace with Israel until they acknowledged, and integrated into their international diplomacy, Israel's right to peace and security (as Egypt did when they negotiated peace with Israel and regained sovereignty over the Sinai). But in no way did 242 prescribe the boundaries of Israel, or dictate that the pre-1967 boundaries were the baseline for negotiations. Now, it could have been that the result of negotiations was an ironclad security arrangement for Israel that made them secure enough to allow a return to the 1949 borders -- as unlikely as that seems, the Security Council did not want to foreclose that option, so they did not want to appear to advocate a partial withdrawal as the best outcome, either. The Security Council felt that the formulation proposed by Lord Caradon, in all its glorious ambiguity and non-specificity, was the best option.

Ocean 09-18-2011 06:20 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 226113)
I would say your premise, that less ambiguity is better for diplomacy, is mistaken. I'm not saying that more ambiguity is better for diplomacy, either, only that there are circumstances that require clarity, and circumstances that require ambiguity, or at least, non-specificity.

I can imagine a number of situations in which diplomacy would want to leave some statement ambiguous. However, I also think that option should be spelled out and not a virtue of a shortcoming in language specificity. So it would have been better to send out a clear message even if not committal. It would have been better to say: Israel will withdraw from occupied territories. Whether such withdrawal is from all, or some occupied territories will be left for negotiations between the parties.
Or something like that, meaning an explicit ambiguity.

That's my preference of course because I deeply dislike diplomatic games.

Quote:

As I remarked in a previous comment, diplomacy is not the law. The Security Council is neither court nor executive nor legislature. (For that matter, legal English is not English, either, but that's a completely different topic.) The Security Council is a forum for the international community to substitute diplomacy for armed conflict.
Okay, I mentioned law, as it applies to the use of language that involves a compromise/ negotiation/ contractual agreement between two or more interested parties. Of course, you can say that a draft, or a general statement of terms to be negotiated doesn't have to be so exact, because the details haven't been worked out yet. However, ambiguous language can create the kind of discussion that's taking place right now. So, it would have been more helpful to be somewhat more explicit and exact.

Quote:

What the gray eminences on the Security Council understood is that it was not their mission to arrive at a finalized agreement for the international boundaries and security arrangements of the Middle East in the wake of the Six Day War. They understood that the 1949 boundaries of Israel were both arbitrary and indefensible, probably in actuality, but most certainly in the Israeli view. They also understood that leaving Israel in possession of the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan was also not an acceptable status quo for the Arab states. The formulation of 242 was a balancing act that required them to reconcile the important objectives of all parties -- including the Security Council itself -- and provide a context for diplomacy between the parties to the conflict to advance towards a solution. The Russian approach -- which simply mandated a return to the pre-1967 border -- did not meet these objectives, since it closed out diplomacy from the Israeli perspective. The Russians withdrew their draft resolution without having a vote.

You seem to want the Security Council to act as a court in these proceedings, issuing clear proclamations like "you move here", "you give this up", "you surrender your armaments at this checkpoint", "you stay 200 yards away from any bar mitzvahs". It doesn't work that way. At best the Security Council can create the environment for parties to a conflict to show up at the bargaining table instead of the war room. The Israelis weren't going to show up if a return to the pre-1967 borders was the precondition for talks. The Arabs weren't going to show up if the post-Six-Day-War boundaries were the de facto new realities. What 242 means is that Israel could not expect to hold on to what they seized in the Six Day War, and the Arab states could not expect to have peace with Israel until they acknowledged, and integrated into their international diplomacy, Israel's right to peace and security (as Egypt did when they negotiated peace with Israel and regained sovereignty over the Sinai). But in no way did 242 prescribe the boundaries of Israel, or dictate that the pre-1967 boundaries were the baseline for negotiations. Now, it could have been that the result of negotiations was an ironclad security arrangement for Israel that made them secure enough to allow a return to the 1949 borders -- as unlikely as that seems, the Security Council did not want to foreclose that option, so they did not want to appear to advocate a partial withdrawal as the best outcome, either. The Security Council felt that the formulation proposed by Lord Caradon, in all its glorious ambiguity and non-specificity, was the best option.
I'm hoping you're using "you", like in the first sentence of your last paragraph, in a very generic way, because, I have no direct interest in this conflict and my understanding of a general resolution inviting to negotiations is limited but enough to understand that such resolution wouldn't mandate anything as it doesn't have that authority.

I guess you call glorius ambiguity what I call unfortunate lack of specifity and foresight. It tells more about different preferences in terms of the function of language and communication.

Florian 09-18-2011 06:56 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 226105)
If you accept this, then it would appear that you have to accept the conclusion that articles in French and English play different roles in their respective grammars. To me, this goes without saying, but I am providing a long-winded explanation because you seem to be resisting this point and I'd like to understand why.

I am not resisting your "points." What are they exactly? As a bilingual and an occasional translator from French into English and vice-versa, I doubt that you could tell me anything about French or English grammar I don't already know.

This whole discussion began with your claim that the French wording of the UN resolution could be ambiguous. I pointed out that there is no ambiguity in the French, whatever the ambiguity of the English version. And I explained why there is no ambiguity.

Your other reflections are either trivial or impertinent.

bbbeard 09-18-2011 10:01 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 226092)
Here, as requested, is the relevant passage from Kessler (bold added):

Since the resolution did not say “the territories,” it has become a full-time employment act for generations of diplomats.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...aT7G_blog.html

Well, I thought this was the most likely sentence to be the source of your confusion, but I wanted to allow you to be specific.

I can't say with assurance what Kessler had in mind, but as I read it, it says to me is that the ambiguity in 242 has allowed generations of diplomats to pursue various strategies for peace in the Middle East. Kessler did not write "it has become a full-time employment act for generations of diplomatic historians," he wrote "generations of diplomats." The diplomats are pretty obviously not sitting in conference rooms discussing the meaning of 242. Everyone knows what it means. They are sitting in conference rooms trying to find an acceptable formula based on a combination of Israeli withdrawals and Arab acknowledgments that will be a framework for peace.

Various commenters in this thread have expressed their desire for non-ambiguity and specificity in 242. As I have pointed out, the Russian draft of 242 was quite specific in demanding a withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. Had the Security Council adopted that strategy, there would have been nothing for the diplomats to do, and hence no "full-time employment", since Israel would not accept a retreat to the pre-1967 borders. (Note there would still have been plenty for the diplomatic historians to ponder, since they would all be trying to explain how the Security Council could have screwed up so badly). However, the diplomats were not confused about the meaning of 242, and there was no controversy about the meaning of 242. Resolution 242 was designed with a loophole big enough to put the Israeli army through. This was purposeful.

Now, having said all that I have said about 242, one could also make the argument that 242 did not accomplish what the Security Council wanted, which was to enable a diplomatic solution in negotiations pursuant to 242. There was a little matter of another war in 1973, countless acts of terrorism, the targeting of Israel during the first Gulf War, interventions in Lebanon, all of which the Security Council of 1967 might have hoped to avert with their clever table-setting of 242. The high point of the diplomatic history has been the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and the return of the Sinai, though it has been argued that the Sadat-Begin negotiation was a result of Carter's bumbling, not anything to do with 242. Otherwise, forty-four years later, about all we know is that Israel still won't retreat to the pre-1967 lines. And the threat of terrorism and aggression from the Arab states is ongoing.

bbbeard 09-19-2011 02:24 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 226115)
I can imagine a number of situations in which diplomacy would want to leave some statement ambiguous.

Well, since Florian is insisting that no French sentence is ambiguous, that would seem to preclude using French as a language of diplomacy, now wouldn't it? ;-) Or course, I don't actually believe Florian in this case. There's a reason "double entendre" is an idiom of French origin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 226115)
However, I also think that option should be spelled out and not a virtue of a shortcoming in language specificity.

Ironically, I'm having trouble parsing this sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 226115)
That's my preference of course because I deeply dislike diplomatic games.

You are welcome to that view. You may find some diplomatic maneuvers unfathomable, though, if you don't make an effort to understand the "game". It's kind of like watching American football without paying attention to all that stuff about first downs and extra points and field goals and safeties and roughing the kicker....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 226115)
However, ambiguous language can create the kind of discussion that's taking place right now.

Horrors. And this is bad because...? It's better to risk a war than engage in ambiguity? Because someday somebody might have to have the diplomacy explained to them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 226115)
So, it would have been more helpful to be somewhat more explicit and exact.

Because avoiding having to explain stuff to their grandkids should have been the primary focus of the Security Council in 1967.

Florian 09-19-2011 04:47 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 226152)
Well, since Florian is insisting that no French sentence is ambiguous, that would seem to preclude using French as a language of diplomacy, now wouldn't it? ;-) Or course, I don't actually believe Florian in this case. There's a reason "double entendre" is an idiom of French origin.

I never said anything so ridiculous as that no French sentence could ever be ambiguous. I said that the particular sentence in question is not ambiguous, and that anyone who knows French can see this, certainly any native speaker. Your inability to understand such a simple point of grammar, which would be clear even to a non-native student of French after studying the language for a few weeks, is remarkable.

"Double entendre," by the way, has never been a French idiom. It seems to have been invented by anglophones, just as francophones sometimes invent English expressions that have never existed in English. You can say in French that a sentence is "à double entente" or "à double sens," but the use of "double entendre" as a substantive would puzzle the average contemporary French speaker.

Diplomacy and duplicity are almost synonymous, but not even diplomats can make a language say things contrary to what grammar permits.

Ocean 09-19-2011 08:56 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
As a general reminder, my preference for unambiguous language and specificity, as opposed to leaving open questions, half understandings and intentional grey areas, is consistent with my science leanings.

This sentence:

Quote:

However, I also think that option should be spelled out and not a virtue of a shortcoming in language specificity.
... means that I would prefer a sentence that makes it explicit that a certain point is intentionally left for negotiations, rather than using ambiguous language that can create controversy and more fighting about what it means.

The same goes for the sentence about having a "discussion". A discussion of the issues involved is always welcome, but arguing about whether the presence or absence of a word depending on the language used, determines the fate of a territorial dispute, is, IMO, undesirable.

bbbeard 09-19-2011 09:29 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 226156)
I never said anything so ridiculous as that no French sentence could ever be ambiguous. I said that the particular sentence in question is not ambiguous, and that anyone who knows French can see this, certainly any native speaker. Your inability to understand such a simple point of grammar, which would be clear even to a non-native student of French after studying the language for a few weeks, is remarkable.

You keep saying that the sentence is not ambiguous. But if two different English sentences, meaning two different things, map to the same French sentence, then this looks like ambiguity, at least from the English perspective.

ledocs 09-19-2011 09:37 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
bbb:

Quote:

Well, I thought this was the most likely sentence to be the source of your confusion, but I wanted to allow you to be specific.

I can't say with assurance what Kessler had in mind, but as I read it, it says to me is that the ambiguity in 242 has allowed generations of diplomats to pursue various strategies for peace in the Middle East. Kessler did not write "it has become a full-time employment act for generations of diplomatic historians," he wrote "generations of diplomats." The diplomats are pretty obviously not sitting in conference rooms discussing the meaning of 242. Everyone knows what it means. They are sitting in conference rooms trying to find an acceptable formula based on a combination of Israeli withdrawals and Arab acknowledgments that will be a framework for peace.
What am I supposed to be confused about now?

Your interpretation of Kessler's remark about the ambiguity inherent in 242 as a result of the omission of the article is tendentious and idiotic. It's idiotic, because Kessler emphasizes the omission of the definite article as having given rise to full employment for diplomats. What do diplomatic historians recount, if it is not the history of diplomatic negotiations? The whole point of Kessler's sentence is that diplomats have been arguing about whether the sentence in question means withdrawal from "all territories occupied" or only from some of them, it is painful to have to repeat this obvious point. There is no other possible reasonable interpretation of Kessler's sentence. What you wrote is obscurantist bullshit. It therefore follows that diplomatic historians must have discussions about the omitted article and the controversy it has occasioned. You claim that the matter has long been settled, I claim that it has not. You claim that the intentions of three diplomats who were there for the drafting are determinative, I claim that they are not.

Florian 09-19-2011 12:11 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 226163)
You keep saying that the sentence is not ambiguous. But if two different English sentences, meaning two different things, map to the same French sentence, then this looks like ambiguity, at least from the English perspective.

Ridiculous. A sentence can be ambiguous in one language, in this case English, and not be ambiguous in another, in this case French. What is grammatically possible in one language may not be grammatically possible in another language.

We are not talking about two different English sentences. There is only one English sentence ("withdrawal from occupied territories), and it is susceptible to two different interpretations when it is rendered into French, depending on whether it is taken to mean ALL or SOME of the territories. The ambiguity is in the English. The French translator has to make a choice when rendering the sentence into his own language because French rules of grammar do not allow him to omit the definite article.

Either he translates with the definite article "le retrait des (de + les) territoires occupés' (withdrawal from the occupied territories) or, if he thinks the sentence means some territories, he translates the sentence in such a way as to render that meaning. The official UN version opted for the first version, "le retrait des territoires occupés, and thereby eliminated the ambiguity of the English sentence.

Either you have never studied a foreign language or you are simply so obtuse about Israel, the UN resolution etc. that you cannot think straight.

Au revoir.

ledocs 09-19-2011 01:46 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
I encourage anyone to do a Google search of "242 definite article." The results are interesting. Most of the first page of results refers to the same propagandistic source, the same kind of source that bbb represents. So a pro-Israel camp with funding appears to have used Search Optimization techniques to refer everyone to the same source, which repeats bbb's arguments.

For a more balanced picture, all one needs to do is read the Wikipedia article on 242. There, one reads things such as the following:

Quote:

The French representative to the Security Council, in the debate immediately after the vote, asserted:

the French text, which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés," which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories" We were likewise gratified to hear the United Kingdom representative stress the link between this paragraph of his resolution and the principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territories by force...[43]
or

Quote:

Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:

It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[24]
Lord Caradon also maintained,

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; it would be insanity.[75]

During a symposium on the subject Lord Caradon said that Israel was in clear defiance of resolution 242. He specifically cited the "annexation of East Jerusalem" and "the creeping colonialism on the West Bank and in Gaza and in the Golan."[24]
or

Quote:

According to Lynk there are three schools of thought concerning the proper legal interpretation of the withdrawal phrase.[14] Some of the parties involved have suggested that the indefinite language is a “perceptible loophole”, that authorizes “territorial revision” for Israel’s benefit. Some have stated that the indefinite language was used to permit insubstantial and mutually beneficial alterations to the 1949 armistices lines, but that unilateral annexation of the captured territory was never authorized. Other parties have said that no final settlement obtained through force or the threat of force could be considered valid. They insist that the Security Council cannot create loopholes in peremptory norms of international law or the UN Charter, and that any use of indefinite language has to be interpreted in line with the overriding legal principles regarding the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and the prohibitions on mass deportations or displacement in connection with the settlement of the refugee problem.
Another interesting source that turned up on the first page of the results from this Google search was a book called "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict," by Norman Finkelstein. Regrettably, the Google Books version I am linking to here does not allow me to paste text into this post.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vNb...rticle&f=false

But a simple glance will reveal the purport. Caradon insists that the preamble to 242 makes the meaning of the ambiguous sentence clear: 242 does not condone the acquisition of territory by force. The US thought, in 1967, that the pre-'67 borders of Israel were adequate for Israel's security and that only minor adjustments to those borders would, or should result from the aftermath of the 1967 war.

I am not saying that this is not a tangled web. I am saying that the intentional ambiguity in 242 only created grounds for later controversy, and my very limited research into the matter indicates that I am absolutely correct. President Jimmy Carter, for example, asked the State Department to compile a report on the question of whether Israel could assert any just claim to territories acquired in the 1967 war.

And the answer to the question of whether diplomatic historians are still discussing the omitted article in the withdrawal clause of 242 is, of course, a resounding "Yes." It took me about one minute to reach this conclusion.

bbbeard 09-19-2011 02:58 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 226164)
What am I supposed to be confused about now?

.... The whole point of Kessler's sentence is that diplomats have been arguing about whether the sentence in question means withdrawal from "all territories occupied" or only from some of them, it is painful to have to repeat this obvious point.

This is exactly where you are mistaken. There is no controversy among diplomats over the meaning of 242 and the significance of the elided definite article. What diplomats have been doing for the last 44 years is negotiating on the basis of 242, not arguing over the meaning of 242.

I've already provided quotes from a half-dozen diplomats about the meaning of 242. The intent of 242 regarding the pre-1967 borders was expressed clearly by President Johnson in his June 1967 speech, five months before 242 was passed. If there were even a grain of truth in what you say, you should be able to find quotations from other participants in the drafting of 242 that give other interpretations. Not quotes from bloggers who know little to nothing about the issue, not demands from Arab leaders that Israel withdraw to the 1949 borders, but statements from actual knowledgeable parties who believe there is some controversy within the diplomatic community over the meaning of 242, as passed by the Security Council. Go for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 226164)
You claim that the intentions of three diplomats who were there for the drafting are determinative, I claim that they are not.

They weren't "there for the drafting", they drafted it. Your claim to know better than the drafters what the resolution means is risible -- and pathetic. The Security Council approved it with no opposition. There were other drafts, including drafts that explicitly called for withdrawal to the pre-war borders, and these were withdrawn prior to the approval of the British draft.

Florian 09-19-2011 03:24 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbeard (Post 226174)
This is exactly where you are mistaken. There is no controversy among diplomats over the meaning of 242 and the significance of the elided definite article. What diplomats have been doing for the last 44 years is negotiating on the basis of 242, not arguing over the meaning of 242.

I suggest you read ledoc's post above.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...26171#poststop

bbbeard 09-19-2011 07:43 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 226171)
[several quotes, then: ] But a simple glance will reveal the purport. Caradon insists that the preamble to 242 makes the meaning of the ambiguous sentence clear: 242 does not condone the acquisition of territory by force.

Let's see if we can address the confusions in your several references from Wikipedia here. The problem before the Security Council in 1967 was that Israel had responded to Arab preparations for war by engaging in a pre-emptive strike against Arab armed forces, and they seized and held territory in the process. Everyone understood that the 1949 borders were part of the problem. Everyone understood that Arab intolerance and aggression was part of the problem. A significant constraint in the drafting of the resolution was the "inadmissability principle", which was embodied in the phrase

Quote:

The Security Council... 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....
mentioned in the preamble of 242. (The inadmissibility principle is based on Article 2 of the UN charter, although these specific words do not appear in the charter.)

Many analyses tie the "acquisition" part of the inadmissibility principle to the withdrawal clause in order to argue that the withdrawal clause is necessarily maximal (as the four rejected drafts explicitly say but the accepted draft does not). What is missing in most of these analyses is that the inadmissibility principle stands alone in the preamble, and incorporates on an equal footing the requirements for a just and lasting peace. As such it is overarching to both the withdrawal and the second operative clause, which refers to the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Viewed --as intended -- as a unit, 242 envisions that Israel and the Arab states can and must come to an agreement for a just and lasting peace -- and that territorial boundaries negotiated under such an agreement are not "inadmissible" because they are the result of peaceful negotiation. The practical problem, for which the British draft was the solution, was that a maximal demand for Israeli withdrawal not only would guarantee Israeli intransigence, but would also remove any incentive for the Arab states to work toward the "peace" clause. The British draft created premises with which all the parties could work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 226171)
The US thought, in 1967, that the pre-'67 borders of Israel were adequate for Israel's security and that only minor adjustments to those borders would, or should result from the aftermath of the 1967 war.

This is demonstrably false. Again, this is what LBJ said on 19 June 1967:

Quote:

There are some who have urged, as a single, simple solution, an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4. As our distinguished and able Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Goldberg, has already said, this is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.
How can you reconcile the President's statement with your summary?


Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 226171)
And the answer to the question of whether diplomatic historians are still discussing the omitted article in the withdrawal clause of 242 is, of course, a resounding "Yes."

Clearly diplomatic historians will always be discussing 242, because it has played a central role in Middle East negotiations for the 44 years. This is different from saying diplomats are arguing over the meaning of 242. The first statement is practically tautological, while the second statement is false.

ledocs 09-20-2011 03:39 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
I said (summarizing a long footnote and some text in a book by Norman Finkelstein):

Quote:

The US thought, in 1967, that the pre-'67 borders of Israel were adequate for Israel's security and that only minor adjustments to those borders would, or should result from the aftermath of the 1967 war.
bbb (henceforth bcubed to me) replies:

Quote:

This is demonstrably false. Again, this is what LBJ said on 19 June 1967:

"There are some who have urged, as a single, simple solution, an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4. As our distinguished and able Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Goldberg, has already said, this is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities."

How can you reconcile the President's statement with your summary?
(bold added)

I don't know. Posing a question in this way strikes me as ridiculous. We have to read the whole speech that pertains to Israel-Palestine, don't we? We have to read the background to the speech. We have to read a lot of other things. But, your excerpted sentence is consistent with the idea that Johnson and the US thought a return to the territorial division prevailing on June 4, 1967 was to be desired, only that it could not be achieved immediately in any prudent way. The sentence is perfectly consistent with the idea that the seizure of new territories by Israel was temporary, in legal terms, and was viewed as temporary by President Johnson. On the face of things, I see no difficulty whatever in reconciling my summary, quoted at the beginning of this post, and your excerpt from President Johnson's speech.

ledocs 09-20-2011 04:13 AM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
bcubed continued:

Quote:

Clearly diplomatic historians will always be discussing 242, because it has played a central role in Middle East negotiations for the 44 years. This is different from saying diplomats are arguing over the meaning of 242. The first statement is practically tautological, while the second statement is false.
I already pointed out the absurdity of a claim like this. Diplomatic historians recount diplomatic history. If diplomatic historians are continuing to discuss the ambiguity inherent in the territorial withdrawal provision of 242, and they are continuing to discuss it not as a settled question but as one that remains to be discussed and explored, that can only be because diplomats are still discussing the meaning of the withdrawal clause of 242. And a simple glance at Wikipedia and the three competing legal theories adduced by Lynk about the meaning of the withdrawal clause shows that the discussion is ongoing. As far as I can tell, the "new" Obama formula represents nothing other than a return to the US position just after the conclusion of hostilities in 1967, as evidenced by this quote from Dean Rusk, Johnson's Secretary of State at the time, also cited in the Wikipedia article on 242:

Quote:

There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I'm not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.
(Note: I do not know if Rusk really says "de" in his book, instead of "des." Let's hope not.)

Moreover, the diplomatic community includes Arab diplomats, Palestinian diplomats. It is not confined to Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, Abba Eban, or any other arbitrary selection of diplomats who happen to represent some favored position.

Again, from Wikipedia:

Quote:

Statements by Security Council representatives:

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 (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, as worded by the representative from Mali: "[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." The Russian representative Vasili Kuznetsov stated:

We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". It follows that the provision contained in that draft relating to the right of all States in the Near East "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries" cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war.[77]
Israel was the only country represented at the Security Council to express a contrary view. The USA, United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, China and Japan were silent on the matter, but the US and UK did point out that other countries' comments on the meaning of 242 were simply their own views. The Syrian representative was strongly critical of the text's "vague call on Israel to withdraw".

The statement by the Brazilian representative perhaps gives a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions:

I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States.
However, the Soviet delegate Vasily Kuznetsov argued: " ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. ... make it possible for Israel itself arbitrarily to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its forces only to those lines it considers appropriate." [1373rd meeting, para. 152.]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, who represented the US in discussions, later stated: "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".[78]

bbbeard 09-21-2011 09:33 PM

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 226280)
The representative for India stated to the Security Council:

This comment is best addressed by Lord Caradon. Immediately after the Indian remark, he said

Quote:

55. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): As sponsor of the draft resolution in the name of the United Kingdom [S/8247], I wish to speak very briefly before the vote to which we now are about to proceed. I shall do so in sincere respect for the part played by every member of the Council and with the utmost care not to raise any new dispute or to embark on any new controversy. On the contrary, We are all, I am sure, determined to conclude agreement.

56. We must now all strain every effort for harmony and unity, and it is in that spirit that I warmly welcome the decision which has just been communicated to us by the distinguished Ambassador of India, speaking on behalf of himself and the other co-sponsors of the draft resolution which they presented to us. It is a decision certainly of the utmost importance. It marks a turning-point; I feel that it opens the way to agreement and to action.

57. Throughout this debate I have tried to put forward five propositions, and it might be well if, immediately before the vote, I repeat them very briefly. As to the policy of my own Government, we stand by our votes and we stand by our declarations. We have throughout made our national position and our national policy quite plain.

58. Secondly, the draft resolution which we have prepared is not a British text. It is the result of close and prolonged consultation with both sides and with all members of this Council. As I have respectfully said, every member of this Council has made a contribution in the search for common ground on which we can go forward.

59. Thirdly, I would say that the draft resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole and as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the resolution, the whole resolution and nothing but the resolution.

60. Fourthly, I would say that every delegation has a right, of course, and a duty to state its own views. As I said on Monday: "Every delegation is entitled, indeed is expected, to state the separate and distinct policy of the Government it represents" [1381st meeting, para. 40].

61. But the draft resolution does not belong to one side or the other or to any one delegation; it belongs to us all. I am sure that it will be recognized by us all that it is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear. All of us, no doubt, have our own views and interpretations and understandings. I explained my own when I spoke on Monday last. On these matters each delegation rightly speaks only for itself.

62. I trust that now we can all go forward to approve the draft resolution. By so doing, we can put the maximum weight of this Council behind a new and determined effort to bring, at long last, peace and justice to all the peoples concerned.
And I'll let that speak for itself.

And as entertaining as this conversation has been, I am moving on to the stack of new diavlogs that awaits us. See you there. Thanks for the interesting and enlightening discourse. You can have the last word if you'd like. -- BBB


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.