Once again, you are splitting the argument into two parts. On the one hand, there is the factual debate, for which you provide very little evidence despite making very strong claims of fact that could be readily cited properly evidenced, though I will of course the points you do mange to make. On the other hand lies the bulk of your argument, which is full of personal assumption and thinly (if at all) veiled invective and accusation, making claims for which you could have no evidence (and certainly do not have any evidence) and which ultimately have no bearing on this debate whatsoever. Since you continue to devote such a great deal of your time and verbiage to the matter of how this debate is being carried out and the character of those carrying out the debate (or rather, me, though your statements are a more accurate reflection on your own reasoning abilities and character), I will respond not exactly in kind but at least along the same lines. Thus, rather than going through your last response and addressing your arguments and claims chronologically, I will deal first with your assumptions and accusations regarding my methods and my character, and then we will turn to the issues actually relevant to a factual and rational debate. It is my hope that this response of mine will render the need for any future personal assumptions or attacks completely void, as truly they have no relevance to the topics at hand.
First, you accuse me of knowing "nothing about matters of law." Such a sweeping generalization itself reveals a lack of understanding regarding the fundamentals of legal inquiry and debate, namely the importance of precision. You seem very concerned with such precision in certain instances, and yet seem quite willing to use vague and ultimately meaningless language when you think it bolsters your argument (or perhaps your self-esteem). While I doubt I am debating a legal scholar here, I am willing to concede that you know something of "matters of law," as you so eloquently describe them; this knowledge is not extensive, as I will demonstrate below when I turn to a discussion of facts, but I would not presume to think that your being incorrect on one complex point of law reveals your ignorance in an entire class of knowledge. This would be beyond foolish, and would in fact be a simple yet rampant case of intellectual bigotry. I know a great deal about many "matters of law," and because of this I am careful not to make statements of fact that I don't reference (your legal interpretation of "both" is interesting -- I would love to see a source for this…but we'll come to that). Once again, try discussing the facts and the logic of the arguments themselves instead of veering into personal territories where you a) have no facts, and b) are apparently far too judgmental to appropriately use any such facts at your disposal.
Your next piece of invective is to imply that I am an idiot for playing games with the word "all" and its lack of presence in Resolution 242. As I do not wish to return this insult I am hesitant to remind you that you are the one who brought this subject up in the first place, and would thus yourself be guilty of any idiocy associated with its discussion. The fact that you spend the majority of your response engaging in this "idiot's game" is not encouraging from your own perspective; it seems as though you are more willing to play the idiot than your explicit statement suggests. Again, it is not my wish to insult or embarrass you, so I apologize for pointing out that you are fulfilling your own definition of idiocy.
Next we turn to your "rules" for being treated with respect. This, coupled with your authority in determining what topics of discussion or debate qualifies one as an idiot, make sit clear to me that I have missed some announcement or posted regulation regarding your ability to dictate the terms of human interaction or debate on this forum. As the gatekeeper of idiots and respect, I would again humbly submit that following your own rules and advice would both make your job easier (by providing a better example for your many charges here, such as myself) and make you appear less of a hypocrite, as you would not again find yourself in the above-described embarrassing position of calling yourself an idiot.
As for the accusation that I am "spewing spam propaganda" and "making things up as I go," I would truly be interested in learning what specific statements I have made that you feel indicate this tendency on my part. Every piece of information I have provided comes directly from UN documents, not from news articles or statements published after the fact or from any other third-party source. My references have all been what are called in the research world "primary documents," and they are neither spam nor made up by myself. They are also freely available and easily found on the Internet; I highly encourage you to read these "primary documents" yourself if you can take time away from enforcing your rules here. Saying I come across as a small child because I have chosen to make arguments based on these primary documents rather than statements made after the fact and without any official weight is -- again, I have no wish to insult you -- the empty argument of an angsty adolescent.
Finally, there is the generally mocking tone used throughout your argument: "unlike you, they knew..." And "Since you like quotes," for example (really, deriding me for "liking quotes," as though presenting factual and explicit statements of intent and relying on the documents being discussed to determine what the documents mean is a bad thing? Are you sure you're the best person here to decide who is and who isn't an idiot?). These add nothing to your argument but significantly weaken the appearance of your character and your ability to engage in a truly critical, rational debate. Snide half-attempts at ad hominems should have been covered in your basic logic course (the one you seem to think I should enroll in -- apparently you're a guidance counselor as well). Your last assertion, that I must be "intellectually dishonest" because it's impossible to have "researched this matter so thoroughly" without coming across your quotes. The extent of my research, aside from a view general articles, has been a careful review of UN documents themselves.
The discussion surrounding Resolution 242 was recorded, as are all such discussions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. These records are available online. This makes it very easy to see what the authors and the voters of Resolution 242 said at the time when their words carried official weight, and shows their explicit intentions and understandings at the time of the vote. I did not ignore any evidence, I just used the best evidence -- evidence you repeatedly avoid. The fact that the U.S. And UK were silent during this discussion (something I'm sure you are aware of) is quite telling. Your address to the audience at large, begging for support in your rather weak attack, is (if I am not presumptuous in making myself a fellow gatekeeper here) a strategy of the desperate.
With these non-issues and the bulk of your response thus disposed of, I am eager to turn to the modicum of factual content in your argument. First, your understanding that both does not mean one without the other is absolutely correct. Your assertion that it means "not one until the other" is just as absolutely wrong. Two primary directives are given by this Resolution, and no relationship of dependency is established. If there is legal precedent for your interpretation of "both," I would definitely be eager to read it, but to my understanding when two provisions are made by a law, lack of compliance with one does not excuse lack of compliance with the other.
Second, while it is true that the ambiguity was intentional, it is also true that the majority of the Security Council made their own interpretation quite unambiguous, in the official records of the Security Council. Your argument also fails for reasons of pure logic (or rather, the breakdown of that logic); you claim that the law was purposefully ambiguous, yet you also claim that is was definitively meant to require peace and border negotiations to happen before Israeli withdrawal. You can't have it both ways. The English wording was kept ambiguous as a political gesture and many might have known that they were "kicking the can down the road," as it were, however the motives, intentions, and interpretations of the Security Council are made quite clear in official UN documents.
This brings us to your hang-up with the word "State." The West Bank was always to become part of the…