At the same blog (Contentions), Rick Richman has dug up an interesting historical document:
Neither Resolution 242 nor 338 mentions Jerusalem, and the omission was intentional. On March 12, 1980, Arthur J. Goldberg, who was U.S. ambassador to the UN when Resolution 242 was adopted, wrote a letter to the New York Times to “set the record straight”:
Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate. . . . In a number of speeches at the UN in 1967, I repeatedly stated that the armistice lines fixed after 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was
particularly true of Jerusalem. . . . I made it clear that the status of Jerusalem should be negotiable and that the armistice lines dividing Jerusalem were no longer viable. In other words, Jerusalem was not to be divided again.
Personally, I have not yet written off the Obama administration in its attempt to make the world better, though my original scepticism is being reinforced steadily. One does however wonder if anyone there knows much about history.
History has no importance to those who have goals that contradict it.
ReplyDeleteFer shnizzle
ReplyDeleteIf you want to know something about the concept Obama is probably following listen to the authors of Nudge presenting their book - here is Richard Thaler (the other Cass Sunstein is an Obama-advisor and husband of Samantha Power) pitching it with the example of the fly in the urinal
ReplyDelete(sorry, but these people turn me more and more into a fan of Miss Manners) http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=56937765&id=279428154
rgds,
Silke
Can anyone refer me to a critique of the recent EU report on discriminatory housing practices in E. Jerusalem? This post is helpful w/ underlying issues.
ReplyDelete