Thread: Resolution 242; What it REALLY means

Originally Posted by moon

Really ? What happened to them ? [Borders]

The Arabs and Palestinians REJECTED them in 1948.

Jordan then ANNEXED the West Bank a Year Later and the WB was 'Jordan'.
Israel won the West Bank for Jordan, not 'Palestine'

There was no 'Palestine' when the Arabs controlled the land in question. Yes, "what happened to them" indeed.

Then in 1967 the rejected/suggested Borders were again Altered by the UNSC 242 to include a Buffer for Israel to withdraw only to NEW 'secure and recognized' boundaries that were more defendable.

Please see the opening posts of THIS string for documentation of the latter.

THAT'S what happened to the borders

(Lesson 1, 2, 3).

The Arabs and Palestinians REJECTED them in 1948.

Ah, so you think that Palestine became ' up for grabs ' because the Palestinians rejected a UN General Assembly vote , 181, giving over half of their country to immigrants from Europe. Where in Resolution 181 does it state that territory would be forfeited if either party rejected the partition ?

Then in 1967 the rejected/suggested Borders were again Altered by the UNSC 242 to include a Buffer for Israel to withdraw only to NEW 'secure and recognized' boundaries that were more defendable.

There is nothing in Resolution 242 to offer Israel ' new' borders. On the contrary, 242 opens by emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war . That kills any thought of new borders for Israel stone cold dead.
Like Yoadm, you are making it up as you go along. Let's sort it out now so that you don't have any further excuses to disseminate this misinformation.
Where does 181 mention ' forfeit ' ?
Where does 242 mention ' new' borders ?

(Lesson 1, 2, 3).

Pompous and fabricated twaddle.

Moon, You are going to have to get used to the Fact the Mr B has serious trouble in reading the very simple text that is UNSC Resolution 242. He keeps on insisting that it allows Israel to create a buffer zone and to define new borders, when it does absolutely nothing of the sort. I know that none of those words or concepts are spelled out, but try telling that to Mr B.

I would suggest that we go one small step at a time, starting the the bit about 'inadmissability'. Otherwise Mr B loses the plot and starts fabricating invisible aditional clauses.

Well, thank you for the timesaving tip. Mr B should be advised against playing poker with no stake money.

One shouldn't confuse Mr K's 'Simple' with Simplistic/overly Simplistic/Simpleton-like.

The Constitution is also a Simple document-- but millions of man hours are spent intrepreting it yearly .. mostly due to the fact the Framers couldn't speak to recent/ambiguous issues.

Thankfully- the Authors of Resolution 242 WERE around to clear up any ambiguity.

Thus the problem of the above two posters.. specified reality.
-

i.b.;

Thankfully- the Authors of Resolution 242 WERE around to clear up any ambiguity.

Really ? How then do you explain author Caradon's frantic rearguard action of attempting to sell the idea that the 'ambiguities ' of Res. 242 were inbuilt by design ?

I've read all of this thread, i.b., and Klipkap and Ashley Kennedy have done a very thorough job of nailing any unscrupulous attempts at misinterpretation that you might be capable of. Just accept it. The invaders are required to go home.

They Zionist myth of Resolution 242's 'real' meaning has popped up in another thread, and deserves to be linked to this topic. Hopefully it can be continued here instead of highjacking the thread about the recent evictions. It can be found here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/middle...ml#post1593483

Here are extracts from a few posts regarding resolution 242 on the other thread. It started with the territory gained in the 1967 Six-Day war:

Originally Posted by MrRelevant

Israel doesnt really want it. [the territory gained in the 1967 war] The Israelis are entitled to hold it and tend to it until their neighbors agree not to pursue the destruction of Israel,actively or passively....something they are having an incredibly hard just saying out loud...nevermind actually someday implimenting their 'peace plan'. Simple really.

This ground that the Israelis don't want is where Israel has and is building its new settlements. Strange thing for them to do if Mr R is correct. This led Moon to ask a question:

Originally Posted by moon

MrR; By what authority ? No emotional, pseudo-legalistic twaddle now. By what authority ?

Originally Posted by MrRelevant

Like I said,weve been over this....242,by the guys that wrote it,the people that lobbied and explained it pre-vote,the body that sanctioned it and the fact Israels 67 war was fought not as a hostile army,but as a respondent to aggression.

The bit about the interpretation of 242 being up to the people who drafted the text and not the stated understanding of the representatives who actually voted on the resolution was challenged. The former by quoting Rules of Order on Voting, and the second by providing a list of the explanations by the voting representatives:

Originally Posted by klipkap

Meeting record - S/PV.1382 (meeting of discussion of UNSC Resolution 242):

Nigerian representative: “One of those factors, as we have reiterated more than once, is the recognition of the inadmissibility of territorial aggrandizement by military conquest and, as a consequence, the withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories that they occupied as a result of the recent conflict.”
French representative: “We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories"
Russian representative: “Thus, in the resolution adopted by the Security Council, the "'withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" becomes the first necessary principle for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Near East. We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". It follows that the provision contained in that draft relating to the right of all States in the Near East "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries" cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war.”
Brazilian representative: “I should like to restate, on behalf of my delegation, the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized. The validity of this rule cannot be contested and is not being challenged by anyone around this table. Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. 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; on a full and just settlement of the refugee problem; and on the guarantee of free transit for Israel ships through both the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba.”
Canadian representative: Typically Canadian
Bulgarian representative: “We note with satisfaction that in the resolution adopted, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, proclaimed in the preamble as a general principle, is clearly and explicitly confirmed in the first operative paragraph, which calls for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Thus it is a definite call for the withdrawal of Israel's troops from all the territories occupied since 4 June 1967. That is a practical application of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war stated in the preamble to the resolution.”
Jordanian representative: “… they all emphasize the fundamental principle that military aggression and occupation should neither pay nor stay. The discussions and prevailing opinion in the Council and in the General Assembly have made it clear that the United Nations does not accept in full or in part the illegal Israel occupation or any measures taken by Israel from the position gained by this occupation or as a result of it. That would be contrary to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, to the rules of international law, to the spirit and letter of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and indeed to peace itself.”
Argentinian representative: “We trust that the implementation of the formula adopted will achieve these ends; it is the only solution. We have always contended and still contend that, as the Brazilian representative pointed out, no international order be based on the threat or use of force, and that no recognition should be given to any territorial arrangement which has not been arrived at by peaceful means, nor to the validity of any occupation or acquisition of territories accomplished by force of arms.”
Japanese representative: “But resolution 242 (1967) which we have now adopted states in clear and simple terms the principles and objectives upon which peace in the Middle East must be based. We emphasize "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security". We affirm that "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East...should include the application f 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 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".”
Danish representative: “In the words of my Canadian colleague, which I fully endorse, this resolution represents a fair, balanced and non-prejudicial basis for the dispatch to the Middle East of a special representative of the Secretary-General.”
USA representative: “The voting, of course, has taken place not on the individual views and policies of various members, but on the draft resolution. I, and I assume other members of the Council, voted for the draft resolution and not for each and every speech that has been made. Of course, I hastily add that I have voted for my own speech, and I assume others have done likewise with respect to their speeches.”
Mali representative: “The delegation of Mali wishes to state that its country can in no circumstances accept in the eyes of men and of history any part of the responsibility for endorsing the violation of the territory of States.”
Ethiopian representative: “With regard to the principles that need to be affirmed, we deem it most essential that due emphasis be put on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and hence on the imperative requirement that all Israel armed forces be withdrawn from the territories occupied as a result Of military conflict, and likewise on the need to ensure conditions of permanent peace in which all States in the area can live in security free from threats or acts of force.”
Indian representative: “Members of the Council will recall that during the fifth emergency special session an overwhelming majority of Member States of the United Nations, whether they voted for the Latin American draft resolution 2/ or the non-aligned, Afro-Asian draft resolution, 3/ had reaffirmed the principle of non-acquisition of territory by military conquest and had supported the call for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces to the positions they held prior to the outbreak of the recent conflict on 5 June 1967. On this point there was universal agreement among the membership of the United Nations.”

But apparently the view of those who actually voted is of minimal importance (sarcasm).

Mister Relevant then did an excellent job in summarising the standard Israeli position on this topic:

Originally Posted by MrRelevant

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 specifics of this resolution were neither rushed nor secretly formulated.It was discussed and debated,all aspects of the wording.If these folks voted without understanding its meaning,than it would seem that they are ignorant or perhaps were just doing some poltical facesaving.

Various times during these debates different parties lobbied to have the word 'the' inserted,knowing the signifigance of it and failed.The official agreement is in English and does not contain it purposely.

Explain how someone knowing the signifigance of the exact wording,signs onto to something vastly different than they had been advocating for all along?

The diversion of power away from the 'voters' towards the 'authors' is a standard pro-Israeli debating route. The voters are 'irrelevant'. This is clearly incorrect but the rebuttals continue to fall on deaf ears. However, the antogonists to the standard Israeli position had additional ammunition. They pointed out flaws in the Israeli position, related to inconsistencies in the Head author's (Lord Caradon) statements regarding the intent of 242, the authorship being held in high esteem on the Israeli side.

'The Judge' timeously provided evidence of the Claradon inconsistency -

When Riad asked Caradon if the text meant withdrawal from only some of the territory, Caradon answered, “Of course not. The text means all and not some of the territories.” Years later, Caradon mused that the ensuing misreading of the document resulted “from wishful thinking or from natural prejudice—often from both.” Yet it is clear that he helped cultivate the various understandings [!] of the document and relied on them for the passage of the Resolution."

.

Mr Relevant then correctly reintroduces a balance by providing a contrasting Lord Claradon quote: - "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to." Caradon seems to be confused, and he is the Head author of 242.

Providing more muddying, Claradon also stated that he did not want wording that implied Israeli withdrawal from expanded borders, because this could be taken by the Arabs to mean that the expansions gained in 1948/49 were also territory gained by war and that therefore withdrawal from these boundaries could also be demanded. Yet further confusion is introduced by the 'good Lord' in that he explains that his aversion to the pre-1967 line was not that he felt that Israel needed to be able to retain some of the ground gained in the Six-Day war, but that additional ground gained could be acquired in a swap for other pre-1967 ground that might have been more valuable for the Arabs.

Some readers feel that the factual wording of UNSCR 242, especially "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" together with "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" are perfectly clear enough, a view that I, as a native English speaker, subscribe to.

Others grant more importance to the confused expressions from the 242 authors and read implications into the resolution which are never stated as such, for instance:
# that the absence of the 'the' in referring to territories means that Israel need not withdraw from any territories at all. If this were so, one wonders why the time and effort of 242 was at all necessary
# that Israel is required to withdraw to 'secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force', which is nothing more than an artful cut-and-paste job whose only reality is that these words do occur in various places in the resolution
# that (in line with one of Caradon's statements) it recognises 'the flaws in Israel’s previous temporary borders'. Huh? Where? Some even introduce the concept that 242 endorses the creation of a buffer zone - I kid you not (points up)

But of course the other great flaw with UNSCR 242 is that it says nothing about WHEN. It really is a massively flawed resolution that in fact resolves nothing if the voting members are seen as being merely irrelevant rubber-stampers. So the most critical phase of the relationships in the southern Levant is supposed to be controlled by a document that has scant respect for the UN Charter and International pacts such as the Geneva Conventions; that need not be implemented at all, since there is no implementation date; that makes the voting representatives only button pushers; and that permits the entrance of weasel concepts into perceived reality when Israel refuses compliance for more than 40 years.

UNSCR 242 was fatally flawed from a practical point of view. In fact it was a disaster because it smoothed the way for the status quo being acceptable - nothing needed to be done.

So weaseling won the day in practice. And the pro-Israeli school find this to be good. But what a disaster this 'good' has proved to be because, instead of being for the good of Israel, it has been the single most important non-action leading to the disaster that the southern Levant is today. Count the dead. Count the future dead. That may well be the cost of the Israeli diplomatic/legal weaseling triumph. And to compound the error, Israel continued to drop opportunities as we can see in what follows:

Yes, it wasn't the end of the impact of UNSCR 242:
1) UNSCR 338 was still to come
2) But more importantly there is far more consensus on the view that UNSCR 242 was a call for the parties to negotiate. Let us see who took which steps to comply with this

Originally Posted by MrRelevant

Explain how someone knowing the signifigance of the exact wording,signs onto to something vastly different than they had been advocating for all along?

Lord Caradon (chief architect of UNSCR 242): "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." This is interpreted by Zionists to mean that Caradon meant that Israel needn’t withdraw from any of the conquered ground until peace had been achieved. In that case what is the purpose of UNSCR 242?? It is a totally lopsided resolution that none of the voting representatives would have accepted if it had been clearly spelled out in the ways that the architects LATER said they meant.

What is never stated is that Caradon further explained that the Armistice lines (the positions pre June 4th 1967) were not ideal BECAUSE they would have befitted greatly by mutual swaps of territory, and not because Israel needn’t give anything back any conquered ground. This kind of weaselling is a hallmark of 242. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...&x_article=196 “This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.” It is clear that Camera, one of the most popular Zionist mouthpieces, had no idea what Caradon meant, nor how the UN representatives voted, and most especially, what they had in mind. Someone please send them the UNSCR 242 discussions reference.

Here is another example from Jerusalem Letters No. 470 3 Shvat 5762 / 16 January 2002 (similar to thousands of other Zionist sites):
“Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders.” The voting representatives did not say anything like that, so they had once again been rendered irrelevant.

So let us look at what the relative power is between the drafters of a resolution and the voting representatives. This is necessary because the architects say one thing, often years after voting took place, and the voters say another. “Supporters of an "all territories" reading point out that the intentions and opinions of draftsmen are not normally considered relevant to the interpretation of law, their role being purely administrative. It is claimed that much more weight should be given to opinions expressed on the matter in discussions at the Security Council prior to the adoption of the resolution.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Resolution_242 This is supported by articles from the LSE on voting such as http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSE...13_Higgins.pdf

Go given that voting is key to any process such as UNSCRs and given that the onus is on the architects to provide the clearest possible framework for the voters to express their preferences, it is the voter’s understanding that is key. And in this there is no doubt: from the statements of the representatives of the countries that voted on UNSCR 242 it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that they knew precisely what they were voting for and that this representation of world opinion demanded the withdrawal of Israel from the territories occupied during the Israeli-initiated attacks of 1967. Anyone arguing with that statement either does not have access to the facts already posted here from the official discussion record on UNSCR 242, or ignores the rules of voting, or it is not worth entering into debate with because their logic is warped by messianic dreams. So with a final *click*, flush Camera down the toilet.

Next time we shall visit the consequences of UNSCR 242, who attempted to comply and what the result was.