Skip to main content
History

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 6
    perhaps my dear downvoter may want to indicate the reason for their disapproval? considering that I phrased it as neutrally as possible. And which is also the reason I am not linking to more sites as the level of partisanship there seems rather high. Is a mere mention of this UN resolution persona non grata? Commented Aug 22, 2019 at 16:27
  • 8
    I am not the downvoter, but downvotes do not need to be justified. ballots are secret to prevent intimidation. Commented Aug 22, 2019 at 17:54
  • 8
    Oh, I realize that, and approve of it. But I find the general aggressiveness and partisanship around this particular, admittedly sensitive, subject matter rather childish and immature. Merely poking fun at the person. Commented Aug 22, 2019 at 17:59
  • 1
    NO DV either and the tone is adequate. However I suspect it doesn't have to be partisanship on the mere matter (it may well be). The problem I see here is that you emphasise a completely different thing. The resolution is weak in all languages, but the main problem is the temporal aspect. When should Israel withdraw? Now, before, at the same time or after peace settlement (exclude those who want 'never')? Caradon excluded the article, French used 'the' Soviets wanted 'all'. Then there is meaning of 'no territory acquiring by war': does this even apply if not aggressor… It's incomplete? Commented Aug 23, 2019 at 12:34
  • 1
    @LangLangC truth be told, 242 is a weak example of what the OP was asking for: all parties knew both languages, it has other problems and the actual debates around exact translation meanings are more lawyer-ese than substantial. however... it is one of the most (in)famous UN resolutions and one of its problems is precisely a translation ambiguity. a DV for this, your reasons or any other reasoned objections, no skin off my back. what amused me is DV came within about 4-5 minutes of my post so on I suspect systematic DV by someone who dislikes 242 mentions ;-) Commented Aug 23, 2019 at 16:41