Resolution 242: It does NOT mean withdrawal to 1967 lines

[abu afak]

THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242

"The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242], tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change...
Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.'
When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution [calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines] but it was NOT a viable alternative to the UK text...
Members [of the UN Security Council] voted and adopted the [UK drafted] resolution unanimously..." (UNSCesolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28.

Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242:
"...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...
There is Lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967...
On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language.
Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area.
The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR,
for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, Failed to command the requisite support..."
(Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973).

Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University:
"UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War -
that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories...
Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were Defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another.
Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was NOT to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' 1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..."
(UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17).
The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft,
which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council. (American Society of International Law, 1970).

UNSC RESOLUTION AND ISRAEL'S DEFENSIBLE BORDERS:

A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of 'secure boundaries' for Israel.
They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler.
The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria.
The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.'
(Prof. Ezra Zohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000).

THE GOLAN HEIGHTS AND THE FACTS - UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 - A WITHDRAWAL TO THE 1949/1967 LINES?



WHAT IS THE STANCE OF SYRIA AND OTHER ARAB STATES ON 242?

Syria Rejected UNSC Resolution 242 because it did not require Israel to withdraw to the 1949/1967 cease fire Lines.
Syria was joined by the other Arab States, claiming that the 1949/1967 Lines were not final borders.

(abu note ... later/1973 accepting the incorrect 'French Translation'/Mistranslation that because of a quirk of language included the article 'the' that was specifically rejected in the Original negotiations and Final Draft
The Palestinians Also REJECTED Resolution 242 until 1988 and then tried the same revisionist trick as the Syrians.. as all the Arabs and most others now Try.)


THE ESSENCE OF UNSC RESOLUTION 242:

***242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines;
***242 mandates negotiation - give and take, rather than give and give;
***242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation;
***242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of 'secure and recognized borders', which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized.
-

 

[abu afak]

Lord Caradon, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

"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."

MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978

above quote; Peace encylopedia
Below ones sourced at post bottom.


"..Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:

Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"

Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section.
And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen:
they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement.
This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did.
It was NOT for us to lay down exactly where the border should be.
I know the 1967 border very well. It is NOT a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is Not a permanent boundary...



Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

Question: "What is the British Interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution?
Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from ALL territories taken in the late war?"

Mr. Stewart: "NO, Sir. That is NOT the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read Concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."...."



Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:

"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out,
and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council.
"I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders.
The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and NOT from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will NOT Withdraw from all the territories."

USA

Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):

"That Resolution did Not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders.
In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."



Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law/Public Affairs, Yale University.. 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:

a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and Not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'.
Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' Failed in the Security Council.
It is, therefore, Not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines."

USSR

- Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what?
Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ...
there is certainly much Leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient."
(S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)

http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242b.html

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What are you seeking to communicate to us here on the USMB?

 

[Jos]

Secretary of State Dean Rusk commented on the most significant area of disagreement regarding the resolution:

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.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[abu afak]

What are you seeking to communicate to us here on the USMB?

The ACTUAL meaning of Resolution 242.. as opposed to the one parroted and accepted by many.
To debunk a Myth.
This is Apparent to anyone with Half a Brain.
Note the STRING TITLE.
"Resolution 242: it Does NOT mean withdrawal to the 1967 lines."

What is the purpose of your EMPTY, Stupid post?
Harassment with nonsense/No content.


EDIT:
The Below Poster, PYMCO_PILGRIM is an obtuse Trolling Moron.
3 (4) posts now and NO On Topic content.
Please Report this Sabotage.

-
-

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What are you seeking to communicate to us here on the USMB?

The ACTUAL meaning of Resolution 242.. as opposed to the one parroted and accepted by many.
To debunk a Myth.
This is Apparent to anyone with Half a Brain.

What is the purpose of your EMPTY, Stupid post?
Harassment with nonsense/No content.
-
-

Thats not a good way to get people on your side.

I read through your post and it was very hard to follow what you were getting at.

The purpose of my post was to get you to be more clear as to your intent so that others who stop by to read, like myself, realize what your trying to say with that wall of text in the first 2 posts.


Now if you can put on your big boy pants and handle the constructive criticizm what is it that you hope to accomplish? Do you think israel should be in control of even more land then they are in control of now due to what you see as a misinterpretation or do you think they should be in control of less land?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Now if you can put on your big boy pants and handle the constructive criticizm what is it that you hope to accomplish? Do you think israel should be in control of even more land then they are in control of now due to what you see as a misinterpretation or do you think they should be in control of less land?

So.....which is it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Now if you can put on your big boy pants and handle the constructive criticizm what is it that you hope to accomplish? Do you think israel should be in control of even more land then they are in control of now due to what you see as a misinterpretation or do you think they should be in control of less land?

So.....which is it?

Thanks for your answer

Hi, you have received -6 reputation points from abu afak.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
3 posts in a row with NO ON TOPIC CONTENT. You are a TROLL and a STUPID one.

Regards,
abu afak

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[abu afak]

Back ON topic:

THE PLO'S PHASED PLAN

Political Programme
Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council
Cairo, June 9, 1974
Text of the Phased Plan resolution:
The Palestinian National Council:

On the basis of the Palestinian National Charter and the Political Programme drawn up at the eleventh session, held from January 6-12, 1973;
and from its belief that it is impossible for a permanent and just peace to be established in the area unless our Palestinian people recover all their national rights and, first and foremost,
their rights to return and to self-determination on the whole of the soil of their homeland; and in the light of a study of the new political circumstances that have come into existence
in the period between the Council's last and present sessions, resolves the following:

1. To reaffirm the Palestine Liberation Organization's previous attitude to Resolution 242,
which Obliterates the national right of our people and deals with the cause of our people as a problem of refugees.
The Council therefore Refuses to have Anything to do with this resolution at Any level, Arab or international, including the Geneva Conference. ..."​

The PLO's Phased Plan
-
-

Enjoy the rest of the Link too.
In itself an interesting string topic.
Speak to 'Hudna hamas' and their offer which pretty much is the 'Phased Plan'.

 

[CitizenPained]

The resolution doesn't, and if Arafat et. al. hadn't been so committed to violence, they would have had a state. If the Arabs had not rejected the Resolution, Israel may have acted differently.

Re-settlement in those areas was a matter of national security more so than Zionism. David Ben-Gurion and a few others wanted to give that land back (except Jlem) but the religious/ideological Zionists didn't. By this point, proposed land swaps between Israel and Jordan had already been discussed and laid out, but as usual, Jordan doesn't like the follow through. And Egypt is a little schizophrenic.

It became a matter of strengthening the Jewish claim to the area, since all Israel had known at that point was war for her destruction.

Don't forget - the resettlement of refugees ALSO applies to the near 1 million Jews who were expelled from Islamic countries, but since they were assimilated (half of the state of Israel in the 50s) instead of milking the UN, no one bitches.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Now if you can put on your big boy pants and handle the constructive criticizm what is it that you hope to accomplish? Do you think israel should be in control of even more land then they are in control of now due to what you see as a misinterpretation or do you think they should be in control of less land?

So.....which is it?

Thanks for your answer

Hi, you have received -6 reputation points from abu afak.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
3 posts in a row with NO ON TOPIC CONTENT. You are a TROLL and a STUPID one.

Regards,
abu afak

Note: This is an automated message.

Hi, you have received -6 reputation points from abu afak.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
You\'re TROLLING/Sabotaging this string. Whether it\'s your Politics or Stupidity is hard to tell. Either way a disgrace ti the board and embarrasment to yourself.

Regards,
abu afak

Note: This is an automated message.

all you have to do is answer my simple question but you refuse. Instead you just continually neg rep me. Pretty lame, i didn't even say you were right or wrong I simply asked if you thought Israel was entitled to more or less land through your interpretation of 242

 

[abu afak]

Now if you can put on your big boy pants and handle the constructive criticizm what is it that you hope to accomplish? Do you think israel should be in control of even more land then they are in control of now due to what you see as a misinterpretation or do you think they should be in control of less land?

So.....which is it?

Always Glad to answer.

"Control" is a nebulous term.
ie, Building behind/within the current fence is fairly academic.
But "Less" would be my answer.

I believe there should be a land exchange compensating Palestinians for land that will become part of Israel (the Near in settlements Only that is), with an equal amount of land.
Not they are obligated to do so (the Point of the string), but for the sake of peace.

My turn.
Do YOU understand and acknowledge the two OP's?
-
-

 

[CitizenPained]

Abu, I think that Peres and whats his name in the PA sorry for the brain fart is negotiating that right now. Mutual land swaps sound like the future.

 

[abu afak]

Abu, I think that Peres and whats his name in the PA sorry for the brain fart is negotiating that right now. Mutual land swaps sound like the future.

Yes CP.
THIS was and will be the deal.
The 'Ohlmert Floater.'

Link Expired but was al-Arabiya who agrees:

Israel returns 99%!
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
Monday Aug 18, 2008

http://www.AlArabiya.net/views/2008/08/18/55037.html

Most Arab news outlets killed the latest Israeli peace offer, when they added the word “only”.
Arab media conveyed the news, posted by Israeli daily Haaretz, in an incomplete manner and in a resentful way, citing Israel’s offer to return “only” 93% of occupied lands to the Palestinian Authority.
The word “only” triggered a flood of opinion pieces attacking and dismissing the offer.
Palestinian negotiators were intimidated, as a result, and disclaimed the offer as “false piece of news”, describing it as a test balloon by the enemy.

The word “only” would have been consistent with the context, had the declared percentage been 39%. But the declared figure is encouraging and worth positive consideration by Arabs and Palestinians.
It is also considered a good achievement by the Palestinian delegation to the negotiations under hard negotiating conditions. When we describe it as positive, we don’t mean to accept it outright,
but rather to continue to bargain on it as a base. Even in Arab-Arab border conflicts, we rarely find a party that concedes such a percentage to the other party.

Those who attacked the offer did not even care to know the contents of such “balloon”. The Israeli newspaper said that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed to the Palestinian side that Israel keeps 7% of the West Bank,
in the form of parallel settlements. That means giving up 93% to the Palestinians.

The offer does not end here, as Israel is to compensate the Palestinians with 5.5% of “its land”. That means giving the Palestinian state 98.5%.

Israel will also give the Palestinians a land passage linking the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, a passage without checkpoints that would still be owned by Israel. Israel, practically, offers some 100%.

This is similar to or even Better than (former Israeli Prime Minister) Ehud Barak’s offer in 2000. Every body has blamed (late Palestinian President Yasser) Arafat for refusing that offer.
Sheikh Ahmad Yassen, the late leader of Hamas, even said that he would Accept that offer. Arafat himself, God rest his soul, asked for that offer again but Israel refused offering it again.

Unfortunately, a campaign was launched during the negotiations, forcing Arafat to turn down Barak’s offer, only to regret it later. Arafat’s opponents claimed that the offer was only 37%, but the truth was Later revealed.

I do not want to call this offer a magnificent one, but it does represent a good start. Israel has proposed evacuating Israeli settlers from all occupied territories on two phases; the first will be a voluntary one, while the second is mandatory.
Other items of the offer are not tempting; such as returning only 20,000 Palestinian refugees to the current state of Israel, the number of refugees to be returned to the Palestinian state is unknown and no details about Jerusalem.

It is very easy to reject any result if you have an alternative, but there is no military or political alternative. It is easy for most of us to refuse 93% in the name of the remaining seven percent of the occupied land.
But remember that most of those who refused the offer watch the tragedy of Palestinians from their air conditioned living rooms on TV screens.
We should give the final word to the Palestinians through a public referendum, not to the Palestinian president, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Arabs or Iranians.

Published in the London-based ASHARQ AL-AWSAT on August 17, 2008.

 

[CitizenPained]

This land they claim to be theirs was actually won by Jordan in the spoils of war. So there is no 'per cent' here. Whatever they get is their 100 per cent.

I do support a PA state, but on certain conditions...I think settling in certain regions was a bad idea, even if it did give the idf an excuse to maintain a police presence there.

The fence was a good idea and should've been done decades ago. Like it or not, tough borders are here to stay!

 

[St.Blues]

This land they claim to be theirs was actually won by Jordan in the spoils of war. So there is no 'per cent' here. Whatever they get is their 100 per cent.

I do support a PA state, but on certain conditions...I think settling in certain regions was a bad idea, even if it did give the idf an excuse to maintain a police presence there.

The fence was a good idea and should've been done decades ago. Like it or not, tough borders are here to stay!

The latter sounds familiar.

Blues

 

[P F Tinmore]

This land they claim to be theirs was actually won by Jordan in the spoils of war. So there is no 'per cent' here. Whatever they get is their 100 per cent.

I do support a PA state, but on certain conditions...I think settling in certain regions was a bad idea, even if it did give the idf an excuse to maintain a police presence there.

The fence was a good idea and should've been done decades ago. Like it or not, tough borders are here to stay!

This land they claim to be theirs was actually won by Jordan in the spoils of war.

How could Jordan "win" Palestinian land? Jordan was not at war with Palestine.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Now if you can put on your big boy pants and handle the constructive criticizm what is it that you hope to accomplish? Do you think israel should be in control of even more land then they are in control of now due to what you see as a misinterpretation or do you think they should be in control of less land?

So.....which is it?

Always Glad to answer.

"Control" is a nebulous term.
ie, Building behind/within the current fence is fairly academic.
But "Less" would be my answer.

I believe there should be a land exchange compensating Palestinians for land that will become part of Israel (the Near in settlements Only that is), with an equal amount of land.
Not they are obligated to do so (the Point of the string), but for the sake of peace.

My turn.
Do YOU understand and acknowledge the two OP's?
-
-

Thank you thats all I was curious about.

now as far as Im concerned jordan and egypt should let go of their control of the palestinian lands and let palestine exist as its own state.

Israel should get to keep the golan heights as their country will be barraged by rocket and mortar fire from the area if they do not.

for the rest, israel should acknowledge that the lands palestine has, behind the fence, are palestines and they should acknowledge that palestine is an independant state now....at the same time palestine must recognize israel's right to exist in those lands and recognize israel as a state.

If either Palestine or Israel can't agree to this then the situation will never change.

 

[P F Tinmore]

We should give the final word to the Palestinians through a public referendum, not to the Palestinian president, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Arabs or Iranians.

Any peace offer is already slated for public referendum. The problem is that after almost 20 years of fake peace talks, nothing even remotely acceptable to the Palestinians has ever been offered.

 

[docmauser1]

now as far as Im concerned jordan and egypt should let go of their control of the palestinian lands and let palestine exist as its own state. Israel should get to keep the golan heights as their country will be barraged by rocket and mortar fire from the area if they do not. for the rest, israel should acknowledge that the lands palestine has, behind the fence, are palestines and they should acknowledge that palestine is an independant state now....at the same time palestine must recognize israel's right to exist in those lands and recognize israel as a state. If either Palestine or Israel can't agree to this then the situation will never change.

John Keane said nothing about an alleged "egyptian and jordanian control".