"KlipKlap:
But the essence of UNSC 242 is clear - if one looks for the big picture and not the word weaseling. Publication of interviews with the participatory delegates from Brazil and India published on the unfortunately defunct Brandish site showed clearly that the intention of the voting members was that Israel withdraw to the 1949 border and that negotiations for a permanently acceptable border be initiated.

Brazil and India? LOL

You must have found some info contary to the conventional "242 means 1967 borders" BS on the net if you have to resort to those minor Players. But I will get to the Brazilian one later.


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..." (UN Security Council Resolution 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).

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/242a.html

Here is the exact text of UNSC resolution 242 (22nd November 1967)regarding the Israeli withdrawal:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" How should this be interpreted in practical terms?

1) The "recent conflict" is clearly the 6 Day War - right Abu? So the resolution demands that Israel withdraw to the borders as they existed before the 6 Day War - or is this incorrect? If incorrect, in what way - the wording seems clear to me.

2) Given the above, I would appreciate it if you could tell me how the pre-6 Day War boundary differs from that established in the 1949 armistice - the Green Line. Perhaps my information is too rudimentary, but I thought these were equivalent.

If so, I dont understand the point of your post - what are you trying to refute in terms that are significant?

FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON:
Israel should not have to withdraw its forces to the pre-June 5 armistice lines. "This is not a prescription for peace, but for a renewal of hostilities." (Address, June 19, 1967). "It is clear however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders..." (Address, Sept. 10, 196.

FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN:
"In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again." (Address to the Nation, September 1, 1982).

FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE SCHULTZ:
"Israel will never negotiate from, or return to, the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders." (Address to the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, Sept. 16, 198.



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 afak 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.

ex from:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/242a.html //


Also

Lord Caradon, an [chief] 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

Last quote, Peace encylopedia

"..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." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

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)

+More at link below

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

How True Vasily. How true.

Klippy please note underlined portions above as they explain how 242 should be read- and the whole rest of the Direct quotes of all the main authors explains the balance of the Intent.

No, Abu, they don't explain to me how to read. Sorry mate - but I can read English and UN protocol states that "the meaning of UN resolutions shall be that which the members voted on", meaning not what some uninvolved individuals say was the understanding by the voting members. So as to be absolutely clear on what those member states of the Security Coincil voted on at the time, here is the text of UN SC Resolution 242 IN FULL. Now let us see what sense the reasonable man might make of what those members intended. As opposed to placing the quotes of non-voting individuals in bold, I chose to be closer to the real truth by placing wording of the actual text that those members voted on, in bold.

__________________________________________________ _
The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war (*1) and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment 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:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict (*2);
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 (*3) free from threats or acts of force;
Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

__________________________________________________ __________

(*1) So first off, the SC clearly stated that acquisition of territory by war is not admissable. so:
1) Bang goes Zionist myth number 7 which states that the occupied territories belong to it (Israel) as Spoils of War.
2) The SC clearly recognised that Israel had acquired territory during the 6 Day War. In other words it was then, and even more so now, occupying land that did not belong to it. QED it had strayed beyond its boundaries - there is no debate about this in terms of the subject of your thread.

(*2) Here is where it refers to Israels withdrawal Abu - here. It is quite clear. "... withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Now before you mention the old tired lack of the word "the" (as in the territories), just read it again. Does it say Israel should withdraw from some territories? Does it say Israel should withdraw from no territories? No!! - it says Israel should withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and when that is read in conjuction with (*1), a reasonable person can have precious little doubt regarding what the SC member states voted on Get back to where you were before the conflict, namely the 1949 armistice line (the Green line).

For those who are interested, Wikipedia has collected a range of opinions on this matter. Although the Statements by the Security Council Representatives are clearly the most important reference (by virtue of UN protocol and procedures) as to what the members actually voted for, I personally enjoy John McHugo's view of what "Israel shall withdraw from (the) territories ccupied" means in terms of the missing "the" - he compared it to:

"Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park."
In spite of the lack of definite articles (the), according to McHugo, it is clear that such an instruction cannot legitimately be taken to imply that some dogs need not be kept on the lead or that the rule applies only near some ponds. Further, McHugo points out a potential consequence of the logic employed by advocates of a "some" reading. Paragraph 2 (a) of the Resolution, which guarantees "freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area", may allow Arab states to interfere with navigation through some international waterways of their choosing.

3) And finally it is here at (*3) that the "secure and recognised boundaries" that you like to refer to, is mentioned. You will note that it is not related to the instruction to Israel to withdraw. Naughty Abu - that was dishonest debate!!

III. THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY

The Palestinian people has the inherent right to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine. The Committee considers that the evacuation of the territories occupied by force and in violation of the principles of the Charter and relevant resolutions of the United Nations is a conditio sine qua non for the exercise by the Palestinian people of its inalienable rights in Palestine. The Committee considers, furthermore, that upon the return of the Palestinians to their homes and property and with the establishment of an independent Palestinian entity, the Palestinian people will be able to exercise its rights to self-determination and to decide its form of government without external interference.

The Committee also feels that the United Nations has an historical duty and responsibility to render all assistance necessary to promote the economic development and prosperity of the Palestinian entity.

To these ends, the Committee recommends that:

(a) A timetable should be established by the Security Council for the complete withdrawal by Israeli occupation forces from those areas occupied in 1967; such withdrawal should be completed no later than 1 June 1977;

(b) The Security Council may need to provide temporary peace-keeping forces in order to facilitate the process of withdrawal;

(c) Israel should be requested by the Security Council to desist from the establishment of new settlements and to withdraw during this period from settlements established since 1967 in the occupied territories. Arab property and all essential services in these areas should be maintained intact;

(d) Israel should also be requested to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12;August;1949, and to declare, pending its speedy withdrawal from these territories, its recognition of the applicability of that Convention;

(e) The evacuated territories, with all property and services intact, should be taken over by the United Nations, which with the co-operation of the League of Arab States, will subsequently hand over these evacuated areas to the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people;

(f) The United Nations should, if necessary, assist in establishing communications between Gaza and the West Bank;

(g) As soon as the independent Palestinian entity has been established, the United Nations, in co-operation with the States directly involved and the Palestinian entity, should, taking into account General Assembly resolution 3375 (XXX), make further arrangements for the full implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, the resolution of outstanding problems and the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the region, in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions;

(h) The United Nations should provide the economic and technical assistance necessary for the consolidation of the Palestinian entity.

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/...9?OpenDocument

Resolution ES-7/2 was adopted by 112 votes in favour to 7 against, with 24 abstentions.

In it, the General Assembly recalled and reaffirmed its resolutions 3236 and 3237 (XXIX) and all other relevant United Nations resolutions pertinent to the question of Palestine. It reaffirmed that a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East could not be established without the withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and without the achievement of a just solution of the problem of Palestine on the basis of the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine. It reaffirmed also the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine including the right to return, the right to self-determination and the right to establish its own independent sovereign State. The General Assembly reaffirmed the right of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate on an equal footing in all efforts, deliberations and conferences on the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East within the framework of the United Nations. It reaffirmed the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, called upon Israel to withdraw from all the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and urged that such withdrawal should start before 15 November 1980. It also demanded that Israel comply with all United Nations resolutions relevant to the historic character of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It expressed its opposition to all policies and plans aimed at the resettlement of the Palestinians outside of their homeland. The General Assembly requested and authorized the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures towards the implementation of the recommendations contained in paragraphs 59 to 72 of the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People as a basis for the solution of the question of Palestine. It also requested the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-fifth session on the implementation of the present resolution. It also requested the Security Council, in the event of non-compliance by Israel, to convene in order to consider the situation and the adoption of effective measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. It decided to adjourn temporarily and to authorize the President of the latest regular session of the General Assembly to resume its meetings upon request from Member States.

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/...0?OpenDocument

It's so much easier to go dirrectly to the UN records. Note here it says all terretories.

"What did the members Vote on"?

Well after many, many drafts of the resolution.. some by Arabs and USSR trying to Insert "all" or "the" the members indeed knew they were voting for Incomplete withdrawal to NEW "secure and Recognized" Boundaries, Recognizing the Old ones were NOT.
IOW, the First 'Land for Peace' Resolution.

again and linked above:

Couldn't be any clearer than that. The members indeed knew quite well

That is why in fact, Israel accepted IMMEDIATELY (speech by Eban) and Syria and the Palestinians REJECTED it.

Hmmm. Kilppy.. kinda hard to explain that result ANY other way.. aint it?

Add the above Fact/Result to the Statements of the Authors.. and you have unmistakeably that the parties knew what they were voting on.
NOT the old borders and NOT complete withdrawal (NO 'all' nor even 'the') but to New more "secure and Recognized ones".. more defendable ones for Israel as laid out in my first.

Next set of 'anti-zionists' (cough) please step up!
(Funny thing about this conflict, even documented facts don't change opinion, just rationale. That's how we know what 'antizionism' really is)

http://gameover.org/

.

It's just a pity that international courts don't agree with you.

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/...0?OpenDocument

You did notice that bit Abu that say all and the. It goes on a bit more:-

[As I say the International courts just do not agree with you.

Abu, I have maintained all along that UNSC 242 requires that Israel withdraw from territories gained in the Six Day War. I have maintained that the lead-in emphasis of the exact text of the resolution makes this crystal clear, namely "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ....." How can there be any doubt that this resolution is sanctioning Israel because it pretended to hold onto such territory (and still does).

I am stunned that you offer opinions of various persons who did not vote on the Security council as evidence that my thesis is incorrect, while at the same time presenting the following as evidence for your position. Abu - please read these words from your own reference carefully - please.

Can you please explain to me what on earth is going on and why you insist that the resolution does not sanction Israel for acquiring territories by war, and as a DIRECT corollary, requiring Israel to retreat to the pre-1967 situation?

Didn't vote?
Are you joining Ashley in the Preposterous/What-planet department?

I gave statements by the UN ambassadors of the UK, USA, and USSR, all of whom DID Vote.
as well as the statements of their Staffs/Foreign offices/delegates who did much of the Formulation. And these delegations were of course the major players in the Res and World at the time. The UK having administered the Mandate previously.

And one cannot reiterate enough for you I guess their intent and the Outcome which Everyone understood, and why Israel accepted immediately and the Syrians and Palestinians Rejected the Res.

NO ANSWER from Klipklap on that, of course. Because the answer would kill the last .1% his already 99.9% lost position.

There is some hope for you kk - You might convince Ashley with your "word -weaseling" even though the Intent of the Res has now been made Vividly clear..... by me.