Well, they don't exist. Aren't The UN and everybody who writes ..., funny arseholes?While the EU subsidizes the turkish occupation of the Northern Cyprus, funny too.
Here is the reality the UN does not mention any '67 borders at all. Here is the official release
S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment 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;
What were those areas Ptonaill? West Bank, Jerusalem Etc.?
It does not say does it, and that was done deliberately by the authors to leave the question of borders wide open.
Here are just some of the clearer meanings of res 242 that spell out just what the UN were about
While Resolution 242 may call upon Israel to withdraw from territory it captured
during the war,
the UN recognized that Israel cannot return to the non-secure
borders existing before the Six-Day War that invited aggression – frontiers that
the usually mild-mannered and eloquent former Israeli diplomat, the late Abba
Eban, branded “Auschwitz borders.”
So although Arab officials claim Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw from all territory it captured in June 1967,
nowhere in the resolution is that demand delineated. Nor did those involved in the negotiations and drafting of the resolution want such a requirement. Instead, they say Resolution 242 explicitly and intentionally omitted the terms ‘the territories’ or ‘all territories.
The wording of UN Resolution 242 clearly reflects the contention that
none of the territories were occupied territories taken by force in an unjust war.
Because the Arabs were clearly the aggressors,
nowhere in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 is Israel branded as an invader or unlawful occupier of the territories.
Professor Eugene Rostow, then U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, went on record in 1991 to make this clear:
“Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce,
calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War - not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip
Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines [‘Green Line’], but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries
Lord Caradon, then the United Kingdom Ambassador to the UN and the key drafter of the resolution, said several years later:
“We knew that the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple decades earlier. We did not say the ’67 boundaries must be forever.”
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
“
It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967. … That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.”7
Professor, Judge Schwebel wrote:
“A state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense. … Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
“As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other,
Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt.”10
But former U.S. Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, the American Ambassador to the UN who played a key role in the ultimate language adopted, pointed out:
“A notable omission in 242 is any reference to Palestinians, a Palestinian state on the West Bank or the PLO. The resolution addresses the objective of ‘achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.’ This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars.”13
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-242.pdf
So there you have it spelt out by Judges, UN diplomats and International Law lawyers just what 242 means and how it affects the Israeli's and Palestinians. Take note of the fact that the authors say that no borders were ever delineated deliberately, and that Israel has the better claim on the land of gaza and the west bank than the Palestinians. All enshrined in INTERNATIONAL LAW
