A structured legal analysis of the meaning of UNSC resolution 242

duplicate deleted .....

 

excellent post.

It would appear as tho on the surface both of you agree on what was said, but its quite plain that the radical zionists cannot balance "no territorial gain thru war" with "secure and recognized borders". ONe would think that this could be rather straight forward, but in fairness, neither side wanted to support the resolution.

AS with most things in the UN, the snail pace of their deliberations were outstripped by continuing developments. The arab league speaking on behalf of the palestinians had already declared the three noes, so even tho the diplomatic niceties were adhered to, it was plain that neither side was ready to swallow the UN pill. Recognizing that but not articulating it seems the drafters gave an easy "out" to each side.


Interestingly, the resolution is very vague about exactly what would be onthe other side of the secure and recognized border - would it be jordan and egypt or something else like an east and west palestine (a rather unstable and unworkable country model - ask the pakistanis). Which is why I think that any peace agreement has to include a land swap to ensure a palstinian controlled physical link between Gaza and WB. I digress.

 

Welcome back 'MYTH MAKER IN CHIEF' your display of silly fantasies are akin Spain soccer team being beaten to a Pulp by Honduras and Japan...
Have a nice day.

 

Can I note that non-response down as your best shot, HBendor?
Can I note that you were unwilling to take up any of my challenges to your own article?
Can we make the obvious conclusion and refer to this thread when next you claim that Palestinians are from foreign lands?

HBendor repeat claim: The Palestinians are recent immigrants from neighbouring countries:
Result: Unable and/or unwilling to provide referenced and verifiable proof

Conclusion:
MYTH BUSTED ..... YET AGAIN!!

 

I find quotations from political leaders and even the authors of Resolution 242 to be fundamentally moot because their opinions were not passed by the Security Council. Only the actual resolution was passed and we must address it based exclusively upon what it states.

First and foremost is the foundation upon which it was passed that is elaborated in the Resolution itself.

The first and last statements merely establish that the problem was serious and that all members of the United Nations have a treaty obligation to comply with the UN Charter which includes mandatory compliance with all UNSC Resolutions.

The second statement establishes a fundamental principle that the acquisition of territory by war is unacceptable. Some top Isrealis, such as Mosah Dayan, expressly stated that the 1967 War was about the acquisition of territory while others have denied it but their statements are also moot. Regardless of whether the intent was to acquire territory ot not the acquisition of territory by war is still unacceptable.

Next the Resolution defines the goal of the UNSC mandates which will follow:

Yes, the goal is to establish a just and lasting peace and to accomplish this two mandatory requirements are next presented. Both of them are mandatory and both work together but let us address one at a time.

The first of two mandatory conditions in Resolution 242:

There is little debate about this but there is one issue of contention. The Israelis point out that this does not state explicitly "all" territories that were occupied and that is correct. It doesn't mean that "all" territories are not included in this mandate but only that the mandate doesn't expressly state that. What it does establish is that the territories are occupied territories regardless of any other considerations. Whether "all" or "some" of the occupied territory will ultimately be returned to the residents and citizens of those territories can be debated but what is unquestionable is the fact that they are territories under the military occupation of Israel. That is beyond any dispute.

This is problematic for the Israel because the Geneva Conventions, which Israel is also a treaty member of, prohibits a nation from allowing their civilian population to occupy a territory under military occupation. The Israeli civilian occupation of the Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem, all of which were occupied during the 1967 6-Day war and addressed by UNSC Resolution 242, are all in violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law. This is a direct violation of the Rights of the residents and citizens of these territories that are under military occupation.

We do need to address the other mandatory requirement of UNSC Resolution 242 because, as noted, the two mandatory conditions must work together to meet the established goal of the Resolution 242.

There has certainly been a stuborn resistance by the Palestinians in the past to accept this mandatory provision which has prevented the full implementation of the Resolution. This mandatory requirement also extends beyond just the occupied territories and addressed the international community as well. The Palestinians cannot negotiate on behalf of the international community but they are certainly under a mandate to recognize the sovereignty, territorial integrity of Israel and it's political indepdendence. The PLO, as the recognized representative government of the Palestinian People by Israel, has since revised it's position and is willing to accept the recognize the sovereignty, territorial integrity of Israel and it's political indepdendence although the "territory" remains an issue of dispute.

As noted in the opening statements of principle for UNSC Resolution 242 the acquisition of territory by war is unacceptable but that doesn't imply that Israel and the PLO cannot negotiate that some of the territory that was occupied in 1967 cannot be transferred to Israeli control as a diplomatic action. The Palestinians have no obligation to do this and if they don't then Israel doesn't have a valid claim to any of the occupied territory under UNSC Resolution 242 which expressly esablishes that the acquisition of territory by war is unacceptable.

Additionally the Palestinians do not have to recognize that Israel is a "Jewish State" as that is not a requirement of UNSC Resolution 242. Only the acceptance of the fact that it is a sovereign state is required and no nation has to accept that the Jewish People have an exclusive Right to this sovereign State or that there is any historical foundation that it was the "historical" nation of the Jews. This is an unacceptable demand by Israel outside of the mandates of Resolution 242 that the Palestinians have no obligation to accept and it is blocking the peace process. It is obstructionism by Israel related to the full implementation of UNSC Resolution 242.

Additionally I've read, whether it still exists or not, that PM Netayahu at one time demanded that the Palestinian State be denied the right of armed forces to defend itself. That was an absurd demand also outside of the scope of UNSC Resolution 242. All nations have a Right to Self Defense. It is obstructionism by Israel related to the full implementation of UNSC Resolution 242.

Finally Israel has stated that it requires some of the occupied territory for national security. Territory does not secure peace or national security. Diplomacy establishes peace and ensures it's continuation which provides for national security. If the Palestinians fully adopt the second mandate in USSC Resolution 242 then it requires them to terminate "of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement 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" and that ensures peace and provides for the national security of Israel. Once again the Palestinians may choose to transfer some territory to Israel for the national security of Israel but that is not a mandatory requirement nor can Israel unilaterally take possession of any of the occupied territory as that would be the acquisition of territory by war which UN Resolution 242 establishes as being unacceptable.

These are problems related to Israel but let us not forget that initially it was the Palestinians that stood in the way of implementation of UNSC Resolution 242. They were not willing to accept the second condition of UNSC Resolution 242 and didn't even accept the first condition. Israel was certainly in the right to not comply with the first mandate in UNSC Resolution 242 if the Palestinians were unwilling to comply with the second mandate. As noted though the civilian immigration to the occupied territories was in violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions but the continued military occupation was justifiable.

They demanded all of Palestine and the complete dissolution of the Israeli State. Over the years since the 1967 6-Day War the Palestinians have changed their position on this and now express a willingness to comply with the second mandate in UNSC Resolution 242 so long as Israel complies with the first mandate.

So today the burden is really with Israel assuming the Palestinians are sincere in their offer to comply with the second mandate in UNSC Resolution 242. Israel must accept that it cannot acquire any of the occupied territories except by negotiation with the Palestinians and that the Palestinians have no obligation to grant any of this territory to Israel. Israel must accept that the Jewish immigration to the occupied territories, including E Jerusalem, was illegal under international law and a violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Israeli government needs to drop demands related to the "national heritage" of Israel because that is not a requirement for a lasting peace in the region or a resolution to the 1967 conflict. Israel must accept that the State of Palestine has a Right of Self-Defense and Israel cannot deny this as a condition of the final settlement of the 1967 conflict. Finally Israel must also accept that a lasting Peace is based upon diplomacy and not on territory.

The ultimate resolution to the 1967 War and peace was defined by UNSC Resolution 242 and both the Palestinians and the Israelis must comply with the two mandates as written. Today Israel is the major obstruction to attaining the lasting peace that UNSC Resolution 242 has always promise.

 

Well done Shiva. An excellent picking away at the mythical threads.

But my guess is that there will be no reasoned and factual rebuttal of your post, instead, at some time the Zionist apologists will again point to:

1) there being no "the" regarding territories, and conveniently avoid the point so often made, that there was no "the" regarding international waters to which Israel was granted access. There are none so blind as those who will not see

2) that the "disputed territories" were 'acquired' as a result of a defensive war, but with no reasoned rebuttal of the often-made points that:

# the Sabra generals and Euro-politicians knew perfectly well (and are fully documented in this) that they knew Nasser would not attack

# that they had various other reasons for Israel's first strike, equally well documented, such as the eroding of the fear of the Israeli war machine, economic woes, social dissatisfaction in Israel, increased emigration, etc

# that there was no question of "innocent passage" through the Straits of Tiran when you were at war with Egypt's allies in defence pacts

# that Nasser was perfectly within legal rights to require the withdrawal of the UNEF presence in Sinai, as admitted by the UN Secretary General

Want to take a bet on this response, Shiva?

 

I never bet on whether a person I don't know will address an issue in an honest manner with integrity. They may or may not do this depending upon their personal integrity.

I would note that the principle statement in UNSC Resolution 242, "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" does not deferentiate between "offensive" and "defensive" wars so that is an an invalid argument. We can also note that a pre-emptive invasion is an offensive, not a defensive, military action that initiates a war. The historical evidence is that Egypt was incapable of invading Israel and had no actual intentions of invading Israel so at best Israel's position would have to be that they thought Egypt might invade but were wrong in that belief.

To address the Straits of Tiran issue we need to address Section 2 of UNSC Resolution 242:

The issue of the Straits of Tiran, a narrow 7 mile wide access from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, are not actually addressed by UNSC Resolution 242 as they are not international waters but instead are shared territorial waters of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Egypt had every right to blockade Israeli shipping through it's territorial wates but could not have prevented Israeli shipping through the territorial wates of Saudi Arabia. The Straits are the only access to the Israel's Indian Ocean seaport of Eilat but the Israelis hadn't actually used the Straits for two years prior to the 6-Day war and no Israeli ships were ever denied passage through it. The Egyptian "blockade" of the Straits of Tiran appears to be an invention of "cause" as Israel was never affected by a theoretical blockade prohibiting passage of Israeli ships through the Straits of Tiran. Not a single Israeli ship was ever denied passage through the Straits of Tiran.

In fact, if we go back to Section 1 of UNSC Resolution 242 it requires all nations in the region to respect the territorial integrity of all nations which would require Israel to recognize the territorial water of Egypt in the Straits of Tiran which extend from the Egyption shoreline 3 1/2 miles into the Straits (with Saudi Arabia having territorial control over the other half of the Straits).

We can also point out that Israel was violating Section 2 of UNSC Resolution 242 with it's blockade of Gaza which was denying navagation in international waters and it has attacked flagged vessels of other nations.

 

What challenge?... I don't see any and I do not read any... you did not bring any substantiation to historical facts...
Go watch soccer it is far better game than the one of 'pretension'.

 

Shiva again we disagree... I took part in this war... our landing in Sharm al Sheik and the destruction of the sole maritime canon overlooking the straight of Tiran is proof positive that Sinai "Legally" was not part of Egypt at the time... Until the Israeli Egyptian Peace agreement.

Sinai Sir was part and parcel of the Ottoman Empire and the Turks gave Egypt the right to patrol it (NOT OWN IT) for marauders and smugglers... Big difference from what you stated... The fact that Abdel Nasser demanded that the United Nation leave Sinai was proof enough of his devilish intentions... He then, brought in his army with tanks in Sinai which also is proof positive that he exactly like you, considered the Sinai to be Egyptian at the time. wrong!



As far as borders are concerned… I suggest reading on…

My research on the Legal and Historical background of the Sinai Peninsula led me to Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen's book entitled "Middle East Diary 1917-1956". Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen was on Lord Allenby’s Staff in the Middle East during this Period when Egypt was freed from the yoke of the Ottoman Empire... In some of his writings he mentions that the old Turkish-Egyptian boundary before 1906 ran from RAFA in the North to SUEZ in the Southwest. The whole of East, Central and Southern Sinai (DIAMOND SHAPED [Rafa-Suez-Sharm El Sheik-Taba back to Rafa]) was thus part of the Ottoman Empire... (This is corroborated in Roman Maps)

In October 1906 Turkey granted Egypt ADMINISTRATIVE rights in Sinai up to the line RAFA to TABA near Elath on the Gulf of Akaba. (THE DIAMOND SHAPED PART).

Allenby conquered the whole of Turkish-Sinai EAST of the SUEZ-RAFA line, thus this DIAMOND PART of the Sinai Peninsula belonged to Britain then, as it liberated it from the TURKS, and was then at its disposal after liberating Egypt, Palestine and Syria.

This DIAMOND SHAPED PART, which belonged to England and to which Egypt was granted Administrative rights only by the Turks previously... WAS NOT PART AND PARCEL OF EGYPTIAN TERRITORY.

 

Diamond shape area that does not belong to Egypt in 'Green' color is seen on this map




First of all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the entire area in question from 1517 until after World War I when Allenby liberated Jerusalem and Damascus in 1917. One has to remember also that the Turco-Egyptian frontier ran from Suez to Rafa. Turkey granted Egypt at the time ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS ONLY up to the line Rafa-Aqaba. Remember Allenby started his campaign against the Ottoman Empire by freeing the whole of Turkish Sinai; therefore Sinai East of the line Suez-Rafa belonged to Britain by right of conquest until its surrender of course by Israel to Egypt for a Peace agreement. Prior to that, the Roman and Byzantine Empires ruled it from the 1st through early 7th century C.E.

 

A simple question:

How many Israeli ships were denied passage through the Straits of Tiran by Egypt in 1967?

From what I've read Israel hadn't used the Straits in over two years for commercial purposes nor were any attempts made to travel through the Straits. Israel cannot claim that it's ships were ever denied passage through the Straits and had it attempted passage it could have restricted itself to the Saudi Arabian half of the Straits where Egypt had no control to avoid any potential confrontation.

Of course if a nation has authoritative control over a territory then they have authoritative control over the territory including the territorial waters. There are certainly constraints related to such authoritative control depending upon the circumstances but that territory is still under the control of the government which must ensure certain civil rights. For example, if a nation is militarily occupying a territory it cannot allow immigration of it's civiliam population into that occupied territory under the Geneva Conventions.

What can't be claimed is that the Straits of Tiran are international waters as they are not nor have they ever been international waters. They have always been territorial waters of the government(s) ruling over the two sides of the Straits. Maritime conventions and laws establish that the waters off the coast of a nation up to 200 miles from shore, not infringing upon a similar claim by another country (i.e. where two contries share a an area of water the division is equal for both), are the territorial waters of that nation. The Straits of Tiran, only seven miles wide, are divided between Saudi Arabia and Egypt with the territorial boundries are established equal distance from the shoreline of each.

Israel has never had any territorial claim related to of the Straits of Tiran which are not international waters. No nation was inhibiting Israel's right to the high seas in 1967 nor was there ever, in practice, a blockade of Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran regardless of politcal rhetoric.

 

This is exactly the way IT DOES NOT WORK INTERNATIONALLY... Maritime passages are required to be open even during wars that the Egyptians did not even declared then... All their actions were pretentiously made as if they are the Lord and Masters in Sinai... Even the UN forces left at the Egyptian threat as no one in this huge UN building could authorize them differently.

Forgive me... what are you trying to say here?

Please check this before making statements of this sort.

Well the area EAST of the line SUEZ - RAFA was not considered Egyptian at the time thus the coast EAST of this line cannot be considered Egyptian territory also. I have an official map stashed somewhere and if I recover it I will post it!

Frankly, what is described in this paragraph is not essentially true. Israel was not allowed through the Suez canal and the port of Eilat is the only port access for oil and merchandise... To make territorial claims in this case was at the time not even considered, because contrary to what you are stating this is/was an international passage way!

 

Egypt required the UN Security Forces to leave because Egypt could not protect them in the event of an Israeli invasion. This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with
UNSC Resolution 242 nor does the threatened blockade of the Straits of Tiran (that never actually happened) which were all events prior to the UNSC Resolution. This thread is a review of the legal conditions of UNSC Resolution 242 and nothing more.

Why not address that Israel has no claim to any of the occupied territories and that the Israeli settlements, including those in E Jerusalem, are a violation of the Geneva Conventions and International Law.

 

Your interpretation of 242 is flawed from it inception.... you have your own views bases on these interpretations...
We maintain in Israel that the Land in dispute is ipso facto Jewish, Hebrew, Israeli (pick one)... Shive our land is not here to accommodate some and leave Jews returning home denude of any real estate. Have a nice day... BTW Japan beat the aggressive Egyptian team 3 -0 in favor of Japan... that was a good match to watch.

 

What Israelis believe is unrelated to UNSC Resolution 242 which is explicit in it's requirements. The legal requirements of UNSC Resolution 242 are the subject of this thread and not the political opinions of Israelis or of Palestians. I have addressed the actual provisions of UNSC Resolution 242 and apparently they cannot be disputed because I've seen no legal rebuttal to them.

Israel, as a member of the United Nations, is required by it's treaty obligations to comply with ALL UNSC Resolutions by the UN Charter regardless of any political opinions by the citizens or politicians in Israel. It is also required to comply with all of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions as a treaty member and the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit a nation that is militarily occupying a territory from allowing the immigration of it's civilian population into the territory of occupation.

These are indisputable FACTS.

 

As I wrote previously, you need to focus. Wriggling has never helped you to refute the Myth-busting.

But I will provide you with the challenge (which you failed (!!) to see/read) once again to select "Which of Yehezkel Bin-Nun's so-called proofs would you like me to debunk first". It is not me who has not provided facts. As you can plainly see, I have expressed full willingness to do so depending on which Bin-Nun 'fact' you select, because all that you have done to date is a boring cut-and-paste job with no personal input. If you would like, then I put it to you that they have all been previously refuted on this very forum. I also offered to provide you with links to those Myth Bustings.

So, HBendor, do you have the integrity to exit the cut-and-paste cocoon and stand up and defend your offering, or do you continue to prefer your evasive wriggling on the end of a thin string?

 

I would like to return to the foundation for this thread as expressed in the Thread Title. It is not about what lead to the 6-Day War or even who might have been "right or wrong" in it. UNSC Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 and the expressed purpose of this thread was to address what it establish "legally" under the authority of the United Nation.

I addressed this explicity in the following post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/245817-structured-legal-analysis-meaning-un

To this point not a single rebuttal to what I presented based upon UNSC 242 has been offered. There have been attempts at diverting the conversation away from this critical analysis but no rebuttal to it. I doubt that anyone can come to any other conclusions than those that I've presented based upon the actual wording of UNSC 242 but I'm certainly willing to listen to any arguments.

 

Here is a definition: ipso facto = 'by that very fact or act'

In other words your 'proof' for your belief is simply an article of faith.

That fully explains why there are so many rebuttals to your so-called evidence, and why you are so reliant on crude cut-and-paste jobs and random videos. Sorry, HBendor, you are going to have to use verifiable facts to counter Shiva, not 'ipso factos'.

 

Nice research, HBendor. Good information. Thank you.
The first bit quoted above is correct. Sinai was incorporated by the British Foreign secretary into British Egypt, as can be seen in the accompanying 1912 map [original can be found here (click)]. Your final conclusion is therefore unsubstantiated; in fact it is incorrect.



The French agreed in 1916 as you can see here:

 

One thing that needs to be pointed out. The entire history of the universe is unrelated to the mandatory obligation that Israel has to comply with UNSC Resolution 242 as written based upon it's voluntary treaty obligations as a member of the United Nations. If God appeared in the sky today and and in a booming voice that the whole world could hear declared that all of Palestine belonged to the Jews it would not change Israel's obligation to comply with UNSC Resolution 242 as written.

It is understandable and acceptable that Israel was not obligated so long as the Palestinians refused to fulfill their obligations under UNSC Resolution 242 but if the Palenstinian agree to those provisions then it is mandatory for Israel to do the same.

Israel cannot add additional requirements to UNSC Resolution 242 such as demanding that the Palestinian recognize Israel as an aparthied Jewish nation or that the Palestinians must give up territory to Israel. Israel does not have that authority under the UN Charter and only the UNSC Resolution has the power to impose any conditions.

Finally, we can note, that Israel has lead the blocking of admittance of the Palestinians to the UN which, at least in my opinions, is rather stupid. If the Palestinians are not a treaty member of the UN then technically they aren't obligated to comply with UNSC Resolutions. They can choose to comply as a non-member but they're not under the treaty obligation that the Israeli government is under.

 

Thank you for clarifying your position...
Once again the above interpretation from your part does NOT tally with the intentions of the fathers of this Resolution 242...
Here they are...

Statements Clarifying the Meaning of Resolution 242
======================================

Even before the beginning of the Jarring Mission (the Special
Representative as mentioned in the Resolution), the Arab
States insisted that Security Council Resolution 242 called
for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories
occupied in the Six-Day War. Israel held that the withdrawal
phrase in the Resolution was not meant to refer to a total³
withdrawal. Following are statements including the
interpretations of various delegations to Resolution 242:

A. United Kingdom

- Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted,
stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:

" . . . the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. TO add to it or
to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the
wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be
considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached
the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution,
the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution."
(S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)

- 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 Honorable 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. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:

"As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital
United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from
territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told
the House previously, we believe that these two things should be
read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before
the word 'territories' is deliberate."


- 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." (The
Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

To be continued

 

continued from previous

B. United States of America

- Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the
course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ...
would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized
boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been
secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice
lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that
description ... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An
agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and
lasting peace just as withdrawal is . . . " (S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of
15. 1 1.67)


- President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 1968:

"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines
between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is
clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will
not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized
borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors
involved."

- 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 and Public Affairs, Yale
University, who, in 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." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64,
September 1970, p. 69)

b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the
Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized
boundaries' between Israel and its neighbors 'free from threats or
acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines
established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The
Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a
comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the
Resolution, and in a condition of peace." (American Journal of
International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 6


C. 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)


D. Brazil

- Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in
the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:

"We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the
Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent
boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring
States." (S/PV. 1382, p. 66, 22.11.67)

Well KLIPKAP and you might think of having an upper hand vs the FATHERS of resolution 242... sorry to say that you have to learn from it and not force your interpretation down the throats of the readers... I rest my case!
.

 

The intent and purpose of UNSC Resolution is contained within the body of that resolution and external sources to it are irrelevant. Here is the express foundation and intent of the resolution as unanimously passed by the UNSC:

In short the UNSC acknowledge the situtation of the moment as being a serious concern (while fundamentally disregarding how that situation came to pass), that the acquisition of territory by was is unacceptable, that there was a need for a solution which restored peace to the region, that all members of the United Nations are under a treaty obligation to comply with UNSC resolutions (Article 2 of the UN Charter) and that the UNSC had authority under the UN Charter to dictate the conditions which would result in a lasting peace.

All of the subsequent "conditions" of UNSC Resolution 242 were to fulfill the conditions established by this introductory statement of UNSC Resolution 242. If there is any question related to any of the conditions then these statements of principle and authority provide the foundation for interpretation because that is what the UN Security Council unanimously agreed upon and the UN Security Council is the only authority in this matter under the UN Charter.

As I previously noted when we come to the later condition that "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" the matter of whether the exclusion of the word "all" has any significance the truth is it does not based upon the "principles" established in the resolution itself that addresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" as all of the territories are currently occupied based upon an act of war.

Now, since Israel cannot claim any Right to Territory based upon the 6-Day War which would violate one of the expressed principles upon which UNSC Resolution 242 was founded, does that imply that Israel will not be able to secure any of the occupied territories? The answer is no but to acquire any of that territory is based upon the mutual consent of both Israel and either the People of the occupied territories or their representatives. By mutual agreement the borders can be adjusted to whatever both sides agree to diplomatically. Lacking a diplomatic agreement Israel has no claim to any of the occupied territory because it would establish the acquisition of territory by war which the UNSC Resolution expressly prohibits.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

In the adoption of UNSC Resolution 242 the Security Council did not waive any of the conditions of other international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions nor do I believe it has the authority to do that. Since the 6-Day War in 1967 the Israeli government has allowed and even assisted the immigration of it's civilian population into the territories occupied by the Israeli military during that war in direct violation of IV Geneva Convention Article 49 which states:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600056

Israel is a signatory treaty member of IV Geneva Conventions and is in direct violation of this. As noted UNSC Resolution 242 clearly established that Israel was militarily occupying Palestinian territory that it had gained control over during the 6-Day war. Israel must, under international law and it's treaty obligations, remove ALL of it's civilian population from the West Bank, Golan Heights, and E Jerusalem which it occupied during the 6-Day war. There are no excuses that can justify this blatant violation of the residents and citizens of these territories as it is a clear violation of the expressed prohibition in the Geneva Conventions.

 

THEY SURELY CAN! It has been recently substantiated by the latest laws of the land of Israel...

The Land is Ours"

I attended the Second Annual Conference on the Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, held in Hevron, at the visitors' center near the Machpela and sponsored by the Women in Green (with organization done by Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar). Several hundred people were in attendance; with perhaps miniscule exceptions of which I was unaware, they were all firm believers in the need for, and the rightness of, that sovereignty from the river the sea.

What seems to me the single most important impact of a conference such as this one is that it brings together those who passionately care about this issue, providing not only information, but a huge morale boost and an opportunity to network. It's really great to be at a conference at which no one says, "Wait, what about the Palestinians' right to their state?" Because everyone gets it.

 

Could you elaborate? Any actual reasoning?