Thread: A structured legal analysis of the meaning of UNSC resolution 242

There have been many threads concerning UN Security Council resolution 242 which was passed in the aftermath of the wars of 1966 and 1967. Most of these are now closed, hence this resuscitation. The resolution seems to be unclear, because there is one group which adamantly claims that Israel was not called on by ‘242’ to withdraw from the territories occupied as a result of the 1966/1967 wars, and there is another group which is equally adamant that ‘242’ indeed calls for the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces.

Here you can find the full unedited text of UNSCR 242 [Click].

Obviously resolution of these disagreements is crucial because the consequences are poles apart for the Lands of Armageddon, and are perhaps the most critical reason for the on-going conflict. But how to resolve this? What we firstly need to agree on is that the proper interpretation of ‘242’ is mainly a legal issue. It has little to do with the Bible, with nationalism, with race, with religion, with what is written anecdotally in newspapers, on the internet, with what talking heads tell us on TV, nor with what posters on this forum tell us they believe.

So would it not therefore be appropriate, given that this topic has arisen lately in various threads on this forum, to get rid of the Myths, the bias, the faith aspects, the racial prejudice … and to seek a disciplined legal analysis?

If so, then I offer John McHugo’s very structured analysis of ‘242’. Are its sections internally consistent, because they should be? Is the resolution clear. It was particularly that emphasis on internal consistency that impressed me. I thoroughly recommend it as a must-read for all those who do not want to be guilty of uninformed lip-flapping.

McHugo’s most recent analysis can be found here [click]. This is how he structured it:

We will first set out the relevant aspects of the acquisition of sovereignty over territory in international law which must be understood first, since they provide essential background to the Resolution …

... We will follow this by a consideration of the Israeli argument by reference to the text and structure of the Resolution, …

… then turn to the interpretation of the Resolution …

… In an endnote, we shall also consider very briefly the debate in the Security Council at which the Resolution was adopted.

I know that there will be many who are supremely disinterested in the legal analysis of ‘242’. For those with a more disciplined need for formal understanding, I look forward to your comments.

Originally Posted by klipkap

There have been many threads concerning UN Security Council resolution 242 which was passed in the aftermath of the wars of 1966 and 1967. Most of these are now closed, hence this resuscitation. The resolution seems to be unclear, because there is one group which adamantly claims that Israel was not called on by ‘242’ to withdraw from the territories occupied as a result of the 1966/1967 wars, and there is another group which is equally adamant that ‘242’ indeed calls for the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces.

Here you can find the full unedited text of UNSCR 242 [Click].

Obviously resolution of these disagreements is crucial because the consequences are poles apart for the Lands of Armageddon, and are perhaps the most critical reason for the on-going conflict. But how to resolve this? What we firstly need to agree on is that the proper interpretation of ‘242’ is mainly a legal issue. It has little to do with the Bible, with nationalism, with race, with religion, with what is written anecdotally in newspapers, on the internet, with what talking heads tell us on TV, nor with what posters on this forum tell us they believe.

So would it not therefore be appropriate, given that this topic has arisen lately in various threads on this forum, to get rid of the Myths, the bias, the faith aspects, the racial prejudice … and to seek a disciplined legal analysis?

If so, then I offer John McHugo’s very structured analysis of ‘242’. Are its sections internally consistent, because they should be? Is the resolution clear. It was particularly that emphasis on internal consistency that impressed me. I thoroughly recommend it as a must-read for all those who do not want to be guilty of uninformed lip-flapping.

McHugo’s most recent analysis can be found here [click]. This is how he structured it:



I know that there will be many who are supremely disinterested in the legal analysis of ‘242’. For those with a more disciplined need for formal understanding, I look forward to your comments.

Klipkap . I hear you .

You're right - the pro-Israel camp is not interested in facts abt Res 242 . All they want to do is regurgitate whatever Israel's Ministry of TRuth told them to think . and re-inforce their own prejudices.

cheers ...

Originally Posted by Marlowe

Klipkap . I hear you .

You're right - the pro-Israel camp is not interested in facts abt Res 242 . All they want to do is regurgitate whatever Israel's Ministry of TRuth told them to think . and re-inforce their own prejudices.

cheers ...

Do not cheer so early... read and educate yourself , do not be motivated by hate only...
U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967

+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Following the June '67, 6-Day War, the situation in the Middle |
| East was discussed by the UN General Assembly, which referred |
| the issue to the Security Council. After lengthy discussion, a |
| final draft for a Security Council resolution was |
| presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November |
| 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day. |
| |
| This resolution, numbered 242, established provisions and |
| principles which, it was hoped, would lead to a solution of |
| the conflict. Resolution 242 was to become the cornerstone of |
| Middle East diplomatic efforts in the coming decades. |
| |
| Following the text of the Resolution, we have included a |
| number of authoritative interpretations of the wording. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+


U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967


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
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,

1. 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:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli 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;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international
waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political
independence of every State in the area, through measures including the
establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. 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;

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


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

Even before the beginning of the Jarring Mission (the Special ³
Representative as mentioned in the Resolution), the Arab ³
States insisted that Security Council Resolution 242 called ³
for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories ³
occupied in the Six-Day War. Israel held that the withdrawal ³
phrase in the Resolution was not meant to refer to a total ³
withdrawal. Following are statements including the ³
interpretations of various delegations to Resolution 242: ³

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."

Continued from previous


- 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)


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)

Originally Posted by HBendor

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)

You have provided this list before and your reasoning was countered. So you just produce it again. Very crude.

1) But thanks for that particular quote above, HBendor. It shows in a nutshell how the interpretations provided by the various illuminaries which you quoted is utterly impractical. Following those interpretations we can see that Kusnetsov clearly understood that all Israel has to do is to scupper or stonewall any negotiations and then she is “allowed” by UNSCR 242 to stay in any contested territories gained by her. That is why Bibi is on record as boasting that he screwed up the Oslo initiative. And that is exactly what Israel has been doing.

Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that that is what the UN intended? If so, what is your address in Cloud-Cuckoo land?

2) You quote extremely selectively from the country representatives who voted on UNSCR 242. That is called cherry-picking. It is designed to create a spin pretending it to be the weight of the UN opinion. That is dishonest. Also, you did not quote nearly enough of the discussion leading up to UNSCR 242. The majority of the country representative clearly stated that they were voting as they did on the clear understanding that Israel was required to withdraw from (the) territories that is occupied as a result of its aggressions in 1966 and 1967, just as they were voting to require access by Israel to (the) international waters that Egypt was blocking. Are you suggesting that because a “the” was missing regarding those ‘waters’ that Egypt could pick which of them Israel was to be allowed access to? McGee has shown this to be a ridiculous position with his “dogs in the park” example.

Since you insist on c-and-p from chronic anti-Palestinian Zionist web sites (such as CAMERA and Commentary Magazine – but without proper acknowledgements) allow me to do far better than you and c-and-p from the words of the country representatives at UNSCR 242. You can find the source reference for all of the following here (click):

Mr. MAKONNEN (Ethiopia) – “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”

Mr. PARTHASARATHI (India) – “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.”

I should like to quote from two statements of policy delivered in the General Assembly by Mr. George Brown, the British Foreign Secretary: “The attitude of the British Government is clear. … it follows from the words in the Charter that war should not lead to territorial aggrandizement. … Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw.”

Mr. ADEBO (Nigeria): “We, for our part, feel that the resolution that we have adopted does provide for what we believe are the essential factors to the peaceful and just settlement of the Middle East situation. 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.”

Mr. BERARD (France): “… 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".

Mr. KUZNETSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: “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".

Mr. DE CARVALHO SILOS (Brazil): “… 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.”

Etc, Etc, Etc.

What HBendor would have us believe is that, until “secure and recognized boundaries” have been established, Israel need not withdraw its forces from the occupied territories. In other words, if Israel were to prevent the success of negotiations leading to agreed borders, she would be allowed to occupy the conquered territories ad infinitum. Does anyone other than radical Zionist apologists believe that this is what the World intended? Well. It seems that they must, because that is EXACTLY what has happened over the past 45 years.

# It is said that Israel delivered a peace offer to Arab leaders in the aftermath of the 1966/1967 wars, but that is an easily proven MYTH.
# According to Israel’s ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shlomo Ben-Ami (Scars of war; Wounds of Peace; p.131) Golda Meir, Israel’s Prime Minister did her utmost to thwart William Rogers’ peace initiative in December 1969, an initiative which was aimed at redefining the borders and the withdrawal of Israel’s military. How more clear do we need to understand Israel’s long-term tactics?
# When Anwar Sadat made peace proposals to the UN representative in February 1971, Israel rejected them. Shlomo Ben-Ami is utterly clear that Golda Meir must accept the principal part of the blame for the subversion of this unique opportunity for peace.
# In February 1973 both Israel and Henry Kissenger rejected a last-ditch Sadat proposal for peace and negotiations. This led directly to the Yom-Kippur war, the Geneva Peace Conference, and Egypt’s regaining of Sinai. Peace initiatives by Egypt had failed; war had won.
# Netanyahu is on record as claiming to have deliberately foiled the 1993 Oslo Accord.
# When the Arab league rejuvenated their acceptance of UNGAR 242 at their Beirut Summit in 2002, Israel rejected the offer with USA support
# When the Arab League reconfirmed their offer in 2007, those two countries again rejected the offer.

It is utterly clear. The UN produced a fuzzy UNGAR 242 which was intended to achieve Israeli withdrawal while at the same time define borders which were mutually acceptable. Instead its less-than-clear wording has allowed Israel to hang on to the Occupied Territories and to build illegal settlements on them, all only achievable via USA support and vetoes.

Against that massive weight of evidence who gives a fig what a Zionist apologists like Rostow has to say? We can all see only too clearly that Israel is still intent on violating international law in order to achieve the dream of Eretz Yisrael that Ben-Gurion so clearly outlined in 1956 when Israel had stated yet another war to try to achieve that objective. That is not a personal opinion as WanRen, Borat and OYM like to claim without substance. I have provided full verifiable references.

So we go back to HBendor's quote of Kuznetsove at the start. The Russian understood the tactics of the Zionist supporters perfectly. Is anyone surprised that the Palestinians insist on resisting this to this day? And the Zonist apologists cynically claim that the Arabs stand in the way of peace. Sorry - the dream of Eretz-Yisrael clearly lives on. See HBendor's undefensible signature.

A fine job, Klipklap (as always).

Originally Posted by Goomba

A fine job, Klipklap (as always).

Speaking of cherry picking... the twisted, warped denunciation is so obvious it hurts my hair.
The Initiators of the resolution from Britain quotes are missing and this shows without a doubt, the one sided, once again persistent frivolous claim that the Arabs own part of the Jewish Patrimony... I disagree...
How one sees the country in the next 10 years is different in my eyes than anyone's...

The white interlopers in South Africa are still thinking they have the upper hand. The Muslims in Spain still think they will reconquer "Andalous" by sheer numbers, without a fight, and the squatters in Israel have no leg to stand on. Have a nice day YA ALL...

Originally Posted by HBendor

Speaking of cherry picking... the twisted, warped denunciation is so obvious it hurts my hair.
The Initiators of the resolution from Britain quotes are missing and this shows without a doubt, the one sided, once again persistent frivolous claim that the Arabs own part of the Jewish Patrimony... I disagree...
(snip of irrelevant)

I was pointing out those that you left out, HBendor. Focus, lad, focus.
But since you ask for the views of the British representative and chief drafter of UNSCR 242, here you are - brace yourself:

[Note that the quote is from CAMERA [http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co..._article=1267]]

• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

So there you have it, HBendor, the chief drafter of UNSCR 242: the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it. Are you sure you got that, HBendor, the main man said Israel couldn’t acquire territory because it invaded it. Right? Settled?

So what did he say? “But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line” . He is quite clear that he expected the parties to negotiate a more appropriate border, presumably involving a balanced “give and take” (see Dean Rusk below).

Finally: "it (security) can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding” .

So when you put all of Caradon’s key concepts together, I put it to you that all he meant was that Israel should withdraw, not to the “green line” but to a negotiated border, and that that border should be recognised by the opposing parties.

I will look for the Spectator link (seems to be broken) in which Caradon is quoted as saying that the "annexation of East Jerusalem and the creeping colonisation of the West Bank...was in clear defiance of Resolution 242"

It also contains a telling comment by another key player:

Dean Rusk recalled in his memoirs that the United States favoured the omission of the definite article in the "withdrawal clause" only because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalised" certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties" "But" he stressed "we never contemplated any significant granting of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war".

Happy now that you have the verified position of the British representative? Good.

I put it to you that that all those explanations that you said I left out are VERY different from your credo of “JUDEA & SAMARIA are clear and unquestionably JEWISH!” is in line with UNSCR 242 and Caradon’s views.

Some people being so enthralled with themselves, they have only rehashed one side of history over and over again that when faced with reality, BLANK they omit, or BLACK OUT the realities of the resolution... In Latin Italian it is called DURO DE COMPRENDONIO!

You side with the Arabs, you see it from their point of view... as an Israel and a patriot, my take is different... Read also Michael Stewart question and George Brown on the subject matter FURTHER DOWN...

I do not wish to carry on with this charade, and I do not intend to go farther than that... your mind is set up so is mine.

I say again notwithstanding ALL THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE WORLD, this LAND is the heritage of the Jewish People from Time Immemorial PERIOD!!!

The ARABS have had their self Determination in 22 Countries created for this purpose this past century!.

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)

Originally Posted by HBendor

I do not wish to carry on with this charade, and I do not intend to go farther than that... your mind is set up so is mine.

I say again notwithstanding ALL THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE WORLD, this LAND is the heritage of the Jewish People from Time Immemorial PERIOD!!!

Your view is quite clear HBendor and has been for many years. You have an emotional view whereas I base mine on the full historical record. In fact I admire your dedication, but do not agree with the content nor much of your interpretation thereof. For instance I am still waiting for your proof of your claim that Palestinians are mainly descendants of recent Arab immigrants. In fact I have been waiting for over a year now.

The intention of the 242 drafters is quite clear. They wanted the parties to negotiate agreed borders and for Israel to withdraw from territory that was not hers. Do you disagree with that? Oh ... I forgot, your position is that it is irrelevant.

Anyway, for the rest of us, the drafters tried to be too clever in their complicated wording because that negotiation outcome has not been realised for various reasons. What both the drafters and the voting country representatives clearly did not intend was for Israel to be allowed to hang on to conquered territory for time immemorial. Does anyone disagree with that?

In other words Zionists like Golda Meir (in rejecting Sadat's two peace proposals) and Bibi (bragging that he sunk the Oslo Accord) and others (rejecting the two very important Arab League summit proposals) are simply making 242 unimplementable and are supported by 'Murkan vetoes. Does everyone understand why that on-going travesty makes the Palestinians mad? If Yes, then can everyone understand why they continue to lob poorly effective rockets at Israel?