Contrary to the popular Zionist myth upon which the entire so-called "peace process" was premised, UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires Israel to fully and immediately withdraw its armed forces from occupied Palestine.
The following article has been adapted from an excerpt of chapter three of the author’s book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which chapter focuses on how the “peace process” has served to block implementation of the two-state solution.
For many decades, the international community has focused on what’s termed “the two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but unfortunately, there exists a great deal of confusion about what this actually is.
Regrettably, the two-state solution is mistakenly conflated even by supporters of Palestinians’ rights with the US-led so-called “peace process”.
The confusion stems from the fact that the US characterizes the “peace process” as intended to bring about the two-state solution. In reality, however, the “peace process” is the means by which Israel and its superpower benefactor have long blocked implementation of the two-state solution.
The principal means by which the US and Israel have perpetrated this fraud against the world is by mischaracterizing the meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 242.
To illuminate the path forward to a just peace, it is critical to understand Resolution 242’s true significance, what the two-state solution really is, and how Israel and the US have prevented it by means of the “peace process”.
What UN Resolution 242 Says
UN Security Council Resolution 242 is one of the key documents comprising the legal foundation for the two-state solution. It was passed unanimously on November 22, 1967, following the June “Six Day War”, during which Israel invaded and occupied the Syrian Golan Heights, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (the latter of which had until then been under the administration of Jordan and Egypt, respectively).[1]
Prior to the 1967 war, Israel held positions up to armistice lines that were drawn in 1949, at the conclusion of the 1948 war, during which more than 700,000 Arabs were ethnically cleansed from their homes in Palestine in order for the “Jewish state” to be established.[2]
The 1949 armistice lines are also referred to as the pre-June 1967 lines, or the “Green Line” for the color with which it was drawn on the map.
According to Israel’s own interpretation, Resolution 242 permits Israel to retain some of the land it conquered and requires no withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territory until a final agreement is reached that settles all outstanding claims, including determination of borders.
To assess the veracity of this interpretation, it is necessary to examine the actual wording of the relevant portions of the resolution. The preamble and first operative clause state:
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 Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force . . . .[3]
The Zionist Interpretation of Resolution 242
The Israeli interpretation of Resolution 242 rests primarily on two arguments.
First, there is the claim that the absence of the definite article “the” before “territories occupied” in sub-paragraph (i.) of the first operative clause means that the Security Council did not intend for Israel to withdraw from all of the territory occupied.
Second, there is the claim that sub-paragraph (i.) is conditional upon sub-paragraph (ii.), meaning that there is to be no withdrawal until “secure and recognized boundaries” are established through negotiations.[4]
Thus, the Israeli position is that the Palestinians must negotiate a final settlement on borders while remaining under foreign military occupation and while Israel continues to prejudice the final outcome of those negotiations with its ongoing colonization of the West Bank.
This interpretation is not sustainable.
The Absurd Logic of the Zionist Interpretation
The call for the withdrawal of Israeli forces must be understood within the context of the emphasized principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war.
As a basic point of fact with regard to English grammar, the absence of the article “the” before the noun “territories” has no effect on the meaning of the sentence insofar as the extent of withdrawal is concerned.
The Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula are all “territories”, plural, that were occupied during the war, and therefore “territories”, plural, from which Israel must withdraw, according to the plain and unambiguous language of Resolution 242.
The Israeli argument absurdly maintains that the text cannot be understood to mean “all of the territories” and so must be understood to read “some of the territories”—patently fallacious and self-defeating logic.
To further illustrate the prima facie absurdity of the Israeli interpretation, the second operative clause of Resolution 242 affirms the necessity “For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area”, which is a clear reference to Egypt’s closing of the Straits of Tiran and Suez Canal to Israeli vessels prior to the war. According to the logic of the Israeli argument, since this clause doesn’t include the definite article “the” before “international waterways”, it must be understood to mean that Egypt could continue to blockade Israeli shipping in some waters, just not all international waterways through which Israeli shipping occurred.
Israel would surely reject such preposterous reasoning in this regard, yet employs the same fallacy in an effort to justify its ongoing occupation and theft of Palestinian land.
Israel had made its interpretation of the draft resolution known before the vote, prompting French Ambassador to the UN Armand Berard to point out another reason why Israel’s argument was moot: the equally authentic French version of the text does contain the definite article.
Berard observed 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’.”[5]
As for the claim that the first sub-clause is conditional upon the second, as a simple point of fact, the extent of the withdrawal called for in sub-clause (i.) is not determined by sub-clause (ii.), but is rather determined independently from it by the words “from territories occupied”, which means the territories beyond the 1949 armistice lines that Israel occupied during the June war.
The resolution states that “both” withdrawal and secure and recognized boundaries are a requirement for peace, conditioning neither one upon the other.
Britain’s View: Israel Must Fully Withdraw
To support the Israeli interpretation of Resolution 242, its proponents also often quote statements by American or British officials made years after the resolution was passed. Most specifically, Zionists cite statements made by Arthur Goldberg, the US Ambassador to the UN at the time, and Lord Caradon, the British representative who was credited with principal draftsmanship of the resolution.[6]
However, it is not for member states—much less individual government officials acting in their own private capacity—to individually interpret the meaning of UN resolutions. Unilateral interpretations have no legitimacy under international law. Rather, resolutions must be understood and interpreted according to the will of the Security Council as a whole.
The relevant documentary record for understanding the will of the Council is not private statements made years afterward by participants, but the UN meeting records prior to and up until the time of the resolution’s passage.
Before the vote on the resolution, British Foreign Secretary George Brown stated:
The attitude of the British Government is clear. . . . I should like, if I may, to set out certain principles which I believe should guide us in striving collectively for a lasting settlement. Clearly, such principles must derive from the United Nations Charter. Article 2 of the Charter provides that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State . . . .” Here the words “territorial integrity” have a direct bearing on the question of withdrawal, on which much has been said in previous speeches. I see no two ways about this; and I can state our position very clearly. In my view, it follows from the words in the Charter that war should not lead to territorial aggrandizement.[7]
Brown reiterated this point prior to the adoption of the resolution by stating, “I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: 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 war. This means that Israel must withdraw.”[8]
Lord Caradon also reiterated his government’s position during deliberations on the text by saying, “As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear.”[9]
Two days before the vote, Lord Caradon reiterated, “If I had to sum up the policy which has been repeatedly stated by my Government, I would go back to the words used by my Foreign Secretary in the General Assembly less than a month ago.”
After quoting George Brown’s words, he emphasized, “In our resolution we stated the principle of the ‘withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict’ and in the preamble we emphasized ‘the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’. In our view, the wording of those provisions is clear.”[10]
The view that Israel was required under international law to fully withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory was shared at the time by every other member of the Security Council, including the United States.
The US’s View: Israel Must Fully Withdraw
In the emergency special session of the General Assembly that was called following the June 1967 war, the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) jointly drafted two resolutions, the second of which affirmed “the principle that conquest of territory by war is inadmissible under the UN Charter, and consequently that the withdrawal by the parties to the conflict to the positions they occupied before June 5, 1967 is expected.”[11]
When Ambassador Arthur Goldberg transmitted this text to the State Department, he expressed no concern about the fact that the wording “positions . . . before June 5, 1967” was included. Instead, his primary concern was that the US-USSR proposals “will be unacceptable to [the] Arabs”.[12]
A later communication from Goldberg noted that the Soviets had transmitted the text of the first version to the Arabs, but that they had changed it by introducing “reference to [the] June 5 date”, which Goldberg said “was not acceptable” because “it had not been included in that version as given”. That is to say, Goldberg’s only objection was that the reference was added without prior consultation with the US.
Goldberg further noted noted that, after expressing his disapproval of the Soviets changing the draft without prior consultation, he “agreed to [the] text with one understanding”. This concerned the inclusion of a clause calling for a reconvening of the General Assembly and had nothing whatsoever to do with the extent of withdrawal sought by the US, thus further demonstrating US’s acceptance on principle that Israel must fully withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines.[13]
Underscoring this point, Soviet Foreign Minister Anatoliy Dobrynin praised the bilateral discussions with the US by expressing his great pleasure at having reached “common ground” with regard to “the withdrawal of Israeli troops”.[14]
Stating the US position before the General Assembly on July 14, Arthur Goldberg stressed that “One immediate, obvious and imperative step is the disengagement of all forces and the withdrawal of Israeli forces to their own territory.”[15]
The matter did not remain in the General Assembly, but was escalated to the Security Council. In August, during deliberations over a resolution in response to the situation that existed as a result of the 1967 war, the US sought to “stick with the formula that Arthur worked out and discussed with the Russians”.
That formula, as already seen, included the principle that Israel must fully withdraw.
Indeed, Arthur Goldberg himself drafted a resolution calling “Without delay” for “withdrawal by the parties to the conflict of their forces from territories occupied by them in keeping with the inadmissibility of the conquest of territory by war”.[16]
The Will of the Security Council: Israel Must Fully Withdraw
The United Kingdom, as already indicated, had its own draft resolution. Prior to the vote on the British draft that became Resolution 242, the representative of the Soviet Union said, “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.”[17]
The Indian representative noted that “there was universal agreement among the membership of the United Nations” that “the principle of non-acquisition of territory by military conquest” meant “the withdrawal of Israel armed forces to the positions they held prior to the outbreak of the recent conflict on 5 June 1967.”
On that basis, the Indian delegate continued,
It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories—I repeat, all the territories occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967. In other words, the draft commits the Council to the withdrawal of Israel forces from the whole of Sinai, Gaza, the Old City of Jerusalem, Jordanian territory west of the Jordan River [the West Bank] and the Syrian territory [the Golan Heights]. This being so, Israel cannot use the words “secure and recognized boundaries”, contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict. Of course, mutual territorial adjustments are not ruled out, as indeed they are not in the three-Power draft resolution co-sponsored by India. This is our clear understanding of the United Kingdom draft resolution.[18]
The US had known that India was going to make this statement and was also aware that if it was challenged, the resolution might be vetoed by the Soviet Union. The US did not challenge it.[19]
That interpretation is the only legitimate and legally valid reading of UN Security Council Resolution 242.[20]
The “Peace Process” vs. the Two-State Solution
UN Security Council Resolution 242 has been reaffirmed by numerous subsequent resolutions, including Resolution 338 of October 22, 1973.
In a 2004 advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s separation wall in the West Bank, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reiterated that all of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, “remain occupied territories”.[21]
The ICJ affirmed “the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force”.
It also affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention “is applicable in the Palestinian territories”.
Accordingly, the ICJ determined that “the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.”
It further determined that the “tragic situation can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).”[22]
Resolution 242 was framed in the aftermath of a war in which Israel took over control of the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. It was initially assumed that these territories would return to Jordan’s and Egypt’s administration, respectively. The US had assured King Hussein of Jordan, for example, that it was “prepared to support a return of the West Bank to Jordan with minor boundary rectifications”.[23]
However, since the mid-1970s, there has been an international consensus on a two-state solution that comprises recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, envisioning the creation of an independent state of Palestine based on the pre-June 1967 lines, with minor and mutually agreed changes to the border.[24]
That is emphatically not the aim of the so-called “peace process”. While US and Israeli officials might speak of a “two-state solution”, it is not the two-state solution grounded in international law.
On the contrary, a fundamental premise of the “peace process” is that international law must not be applied. Instead, the occupied must “negotiate” with their occupier over how much of their own territory they will be allowed to exercise some limited measure of autonomy within.
What the real two-state solution essentially means is an end to the Israeli occupation. While supporters of Palestinians’ rights are certainly right to oppose the rejectionist framework of the “peace process”, it should be kept in mind that the purpose of the Oslo Accords was not to realize the two-state solution, but to prevent that outcome.
The Path Forward
Many supporters of Palestinians’ rights today favor a single, democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens. This is indeed a worthy goal. However, the question is how to get there. Many of these same supporters also reject the two-state solution on the mistaken grounds that this is the outcome the “peace process” was aimed at.
With a proper understanding of the legal basis for the two-state solution, it should rather be clear that if a single-state solution is ever to be achieved, the first step toward that end must be the implementation of the two-state solution—that is to say, the withdraw of Israeli armed forces to the positions they held prior to June 5, 1967, in accordance with international law and the unanimous will of the UN Security Council as expressed in Resolution 242.
It’s important in this context to note the role of the Palestinian Authority (PA). This body was established under the Oslo Accords essentially to serve as Israel’s collaborator in enforcing its occupation regime.
To free themselves from Israel, in other words, the Palestinian people must first liberate themselves from the Palestinian Authority, which to date has stopped short of pursuing legal remedy through the legal mechanisms now available to it since the UN General Assembly recognized Palestine as a non-member state in November 2012.
Specifically, the Palestinian leadership now has recourse to both the ICJ and the International Criminal Court (ICC), but the acting Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, whose legal term in office expired years ago, has proven more willing to assure his own status by placating Israel and the US rather than standing up for his people.
At this time, US President Donald Trump has completely discredited the “peace process” by declaring Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital—in contravention to numerous UN Security Council Resolutions observing that Israel’s measures to annex the city are “illegal, null and void” under international law.
In response, Abbas appropriately declared the “peace process” to be dead—and yet despite the opportunity presented in light of this development, he still refuses to take any meaningful steps in pursuit of legal remedy for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians under its occupation regime.
If the present Palestinian leadership cannot find the will or the courage to do what is necessary, then the Palestinian people must rid themselves of that leadership. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the PA’s parent body, has the authority to withdrawal from the Oslo Accords and dissolve the PA, which would seem to be a prerequisite for meaningful progress to be made.
However, achieving the political will to do so would require a united front, which would mean reconciliation between the factions Hamas, which rules Gaza, and Fatah, the party of Mahmoud Abbas, who rules in the West Bank. This, too, seems unlikely under Abbas’s leadership, given his propensity to serve the occupation regime at the expense of his own people, and particularly at the expense of the civilian population of Gaza suffering under Israel’s illegal blockade.
The task of liberating themselves from their own leadership will not be an easy one for the Palestinians, but it does seem a prerequisite if an end to the occupation is to be realized. Only once this is accomplished will the Palestinian people gain the political leverage necessary to take the next step: to seek legal remedy and a just solution for the Palestinian refugees whom Israel has refused to allow to return to their homeland since the “Jewish state” was established 70 years ago by ethnically cleansing most of the Arab population from their homes in Palestine.
For more insight, read Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which shatters mainstream narratives about the conflict, revealing the true reasons for its persistence and illuminating the path to peace.
References
[1] For further reading, see: Jeremy R. Hammond, “Who Started the Six Day War of June 1967?”, Foreign Policy Journal, June 5, 2017, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/06/05/who-started-the-six-day-war-of-june-1967/.
[2] For further reading, see: Jeremy R. Hammond, “Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”, Foreign Policy Journal, November 14, 2016, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/11/14/benny-morriss-untenable-denial-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine/.
[3] United Nations Security Council, 1382nd Meeting, Resolution 242 (1967), S/RES/242(1967) (November 22, 1967), http://undocs.org/S/RES/242(1967). Bold emphasis added.
[4] Yehuda Blum, “The Territorial Clauses of Security Council Resolution 242,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, June 4, 2007, http://jcpa.org/article/the-territorial-clauses-of-security-council-resolution-242/. Blum is a former Israeli Ambassador to the UN and Professor Emeritus of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
[5] United Nations Security Council, 1382nd Meeting, The situation in the Middle East, S/PV.1382 (OR) (November 22, 1967), http://undocs.org/S/PV.1382%20(OR).
[6] See, for example, “Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters”, Committee for Accuracy in Midddle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), January 15, 2007, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267.
[7] United Nations General Assembly, 1529th Plenary Meeting, Fifth Emergency Special Session, A/PV.1529 (June 21, 1967), http://undocs.org/A/PV.1529. Emphasis added.
[8] Ibid. Emphasis added.
[9] United Nations Security Council, 1379th Meeting, The situation in the Middle East, S/PV.1379 (November 16, 1967), https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/13E49B0F4C7AE1DC0525672B0069DEF4.
[10] United Nations Security Council, 1381st Meeting, The situation in the Middle East, S/PV.1381 (November 20, 1967), https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/96842546E13A993905256723004E8175.
[11] US Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), Vol. XIX, “Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967,” Document 380, “Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State,” July 21, 1967, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d380. Emphasis added. The full text of two draft resolutions prepared jointly by the US and USSR was included in the telegram. The discussions between the Americans and Soviets also reveal that, although it did not appear in the final draft, the US was not opposed to a resolution calling Israel to withdraw “without delay”, so long as the section also calling for an end of states of belligerency also contained that wording. See Document 377, “Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State,” July 20, 1967, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d377.
[12] FRUS, Document 380, op. cit.
[13] FRUS, Vol. XIX, Document 384, “Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State,” July 22, 1967, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d384.
[14] FRUS, Vol. XIX, Document 392, “Memorandum of Conversation,” July 27, 1967, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d392.
[15] United Nations General Assembly, 1544th Plenary Meeting, Fifth Emergency Special Session, A/PV.1554 (July 14, 1967), http://undocs.org/A/PV.1554. Emphasis added.
[16] FRUS, Vol. XIX, Document 415, “Memorandum From the President’s Special Consultant (Bundy) to President Johnson,” August 11, 1967, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d415.
[17] S/PV.1379.
[18] Ibid.
[19] US Department of State, FRUS, Vol. XIX, Document 541, “Editorial Note.”
[20] As the ICJ has also observed, “it is an established principle that the right of giving an authoritative interpretation of a legal rule (le droit d’interpréter authentiqument) belongs solely to the person or body who has power to modify or suppress it.” See: Michael C. Wood, “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions,” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Volume 2, 1998, http://www.mpil.de/files/pdf2/mpunyb_wood_2.pdf.
[21] For further reading, see, “Why the US Moving Its Israel Embassy to Jerusalem Would Be Illegal”, Foreign Policy Journal, June 23, 2017, https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/06/23/why-the-us-moving-its-israel-embassy-to-jerusalem-would-be-illegal/.
[22] International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, July 9, 2004, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/131/131-20040709-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf.
[23] US Department of State, FRUS, Vol. XIX, Document 506, “Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel,” November 30, 1968, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d506.
[24] Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & The Palestinians (Cambridge: South End Press, 1999), 40-41.
I and many others can easily refute the writer’s claims about the intentions carefully built within UNSCR 242 by its authors, but I for one will not do so. The reason is that it is clear enough from the illogic and biases expressed within the article that its author is far from being, as he likes to describe himself, an “independent” (sic) political analyst. One brief example: international waters means waterways not controlled by and recognized as being within the domain of any (i.e.,any and all) nation/s. The addition of the word “all” contributes nothing to his or to any similar argument as to what “international waters” means. As to the other false claims made, specifically in one case, his deliberate choice to disregard the meaning of the deliberated and agreed upon omission of the definite article “the” before “territories”, someone else can try to insert some truth into the author’s biased and confused mind. That effort would be a waste of good energy.
The Resolution says nothing about the Palestinians. If it had included a third principle about the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination within Palestine we might not have had 50 more years of the denial of that right. But they didn’t.
But the Resolution does require withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank, at that time part of Jordan, but held in trust for the Palestinian people at the insistence of the Arab League (June 1950) and as required by Chapter 11 of the UN Charter which applies whenever a Member State (in this case Jordan) administers the territory of a non-self-governing people (in this case the Palestinians). In 1988 Jordan returned its sovereignty over the West Bank to the PLO, who created the modern State of Palestine by the same process of declaration and recognition that created Israel in 1948. The State of Palestine is the rightful sovereign in the West Bank.
re: “But the Resolution does require withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank,..”
not.
The Resolution requires Israeli forces to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict”. The West Bank is one of the four territories occupied in the conflict. Therefore, Israeli forces have to withdraw from the West Bank. Note that it does not say anything about where the final border will be, that is for the two nations to decide. Nor does it say that Israeli citizens must withdraw from the West Bank. What is required before there can be a just and lasting peace is AN END TO THE MILITARY OCCUPATION.
FYI: There is no mention of the “west bank” in 242. Nor does it clearly state that Israel must withdraw from the “west bank”. It only refers to “territories”, and the war that preceded and created the need for the resolution.
And once again, i24also does not mention the Palestinians, or Arabs, or Jews, only “refugees”.
It does not mention the names of any of the territories that were occupied. It is a factual matter that there were four such territories: Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and West Bank.
Then at last, you agree with me. Good for you! You are learning the truth! Be happy about it!
And has Israel withdrawn from “territories”? Let’s see—Sinai, Gaza. Yes, it has!
No, you cannot refute what I wrote (must less “easily”).
Yes, I can, and, I have.
I never expected you to agree with me. You are too far gone for that.
Auf wiedersehen.
Simply repeating the same absurdity I’ve debunked in the article is a world away from refuting what I wrote in the article.
You’ve debunked absolutely nothing. Es tut mir leid.
I challenge you to present an argument demonstrating any error in either fact or logic in the article. Short of that, I have demonstrated that the Zionist claim about Resolution 242 is a lie.
Recommend you take your stupendous ignorance, your blindness, your inability to discern truth from lies, go back to basic education, to elementary school, i.e., start all over. You are without question a lost human being, living an existence within nothing more than an absurd set of lies. Facts.
This forum is for intelligent discussion. I warned you trolling is not allowed here. Your commenting privileges are revoked.
The only absurdity I’ve referred to is your specious, fallacious article. Fact.
Well, you’ll have to do better than to conflate “Fact” with unsupported opinion.
In the last statement (there’s that “the” word again!) you meant to write (I sort of assume), “much less, easily”; a reference to grammar and punctuation issues (plus the definite article).
I wrote the statement as intended, butthis has no bearing on the point I made in the article about the absurdity of the Zionist misinterpretation of 242.
Final word to you: you’re way beyond help.
Done.
I would propose that it is you who’s “way beyond help”, given your demonstrated insistence on clinging to your preconceived belief in the face of overwhelming evidence proving your belief is wrong.
Then a course in the English language might serve your debunked cause. Ende.
You are simply not addressing the point I made in the article with respect to grammar.
Re: “an independent political analyst” Really? Not even close to truth.
From the self-described independent analyst: “Contrary to the popular Zionist myth upon which the entire so-called “peace process” was premised, UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires Israel to fully and immediately withdraw its armed forces from occupied Palestine.”
So grossly wrong, and intentionally, perhaps even maliciously false, that it doesn’t merit an extensive reply.
Fact #1: There has never been an independent nation, state or independent political entity with that name in all of human history.
Fact#2: The word itself was derived from a Hebrew verb – “palash”(פלש) – transliterated from the verb root “invaded”, which is why the Romans invented the word (i.e., they invaded).
And, there is no “p” letter or sound in the Arabic language!
Fact #3: The Arabs who live in the area speak the same language and practice the same religious habits and rituals as the other Arab majority nations and tribes throughout the Middle East. There is virtually nothing that distinguishes them, neither culturally, nor religiously nor linguistically from Arabs in the Middle Eastern nations.
1. Palestine under the Mandate from 1922 onwards was a State: it had a population, government, defined borders, and a capacity to enter into relationship with other states. These are the requirements for a territory to be a State. Both the Arab inhabitants and the incoming Jewish immigrants became Palestinian citizens. It is true that Palestine was not an independent State, because it was under British administration. However, the intention of the Mandate was to create an independent state of Palestine which was to be the common home of two nations, Jewish and Arab. This idea was proposed by the World Zionist Congress in its 1921 Carlsbad Resolution.
2. The name Palestine was not invented by the Romans. In the 5th Century BCE the Greek historian Herodotus said “there is a district in Syria called Palaistine” which covered the area from Phoenicia (in today’s Lebanon) to Egypt. In Arabic the name transliterates as Filastin. The sound of the Arab ‘F’ is intermediate between the P and F of European languages.
3. There are many Arab nations. Their common factors are the Arabic language and the religion of Islam. But they are not all the same, they have different histories and cultures and ways of life. That is why they are separate nations. The Palestinians have had a distinct national identity for over a thousand years. They have a special role in Islam as guardians of the Holy Places, and they have a very distinctive Arabic dialect.
Why are you so eager to denigrate the people you have conquered and oppressed? Is it out of a sense of guilt?
re:”Palestine under the Mandate from 1922 onwards was a State:” not.
On what basis do you say that Palestine under the Mandate was not a State? None. In fact, nothing you say has been backed up by any evidence or logical argument.
I’ll repeat to you what I’ve written in reply to the author of this farcical article:
I do not expect you or others like you to agree with me. I know for a fact all of you are far too cognitively nearsighted to see truth and facts, whomever or whatever factors present themselves before all of you . All of you have shown is no regard for stated facts already provided and in addition, a belief in utter nonsense, which serves as sufficient evidence that it would be a waste of time and energy to try to enlighten your type here. So believe what you like to believe for as long as you want. I am just grateful that people like you and the author of this ridiculous article do not have the weapons and/or tools to get what you’re after.
man·date:
a commission from the League of Nations to a member state to administer a territory:
“The Palestinians have had a distinct national identity for over a thousand years.”
not.
You need to read the book about Palestinian identity and nationalism: “Remembering and Imagining Palestine: Identity and Nationalism from the Crusades to the Present”, by Haim Gerber, a Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
I don’t need to read anything. Either make your precise point, cite a specific claim from that reference or thoroughly edit your comment. I will read no book or anything else that you cannot refer to, and exactly. Get it?
It is not a claim, it is conclusion by an academic historian at a leading university from his research involving hundreds of documents that there has been a distinct Palestinian national identity since before the Crusades, and that “The Crusades in fact imparted to the inhabitants of the country a feeling of chosenness: it was God’s assignment to them to be the living guardians of the holy sites of Islam for the whole Islamic world.”
A conclusion is not the same thing as proven to be true. You should know better.
“They have a special role in Islam as guardians of the Holy Places,..”
not.
Btw, ever heard of Jordan?
Palestine is the Holy Land of the three monotheistic religions. The Holy Places are mostly in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. A Jordanian waqf (Islamic charitable endowment) has administered them since 1950 when the area became part of Jordan. In 1988 Jordan returned sovereignty over the area to the Palestinians.
not again
Did you actually hear someone speak words to you 2500 years ago, as you’ve claimed? Yes or no?
I answered this point previously, with an apology for my error, but my response seems to have disappeared. He wrote it in a book called “Histories”.
a·poc·ry·phal
apocryphal:
ADJECTIVE
(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.
“While it is undeniable that Herodotus makes some mistakes in his work, his Histories are generally reliable and scholarly studies in all disciplines concerning his work (from archaeology to ethnology and more) have continued to substantiate all of his most important observations.” From the Ancient History Encyclopedia
Do you happen to have the original work by that person? Has it been verified as to its authenticity and actual age? I’ll bet the answer to both is- no.
Wrong , again.
After Jerusalem’s reunification in 1967, Israel’s leadership chose to uphold the existing status quo on the Temple Mount. Out of respect for Muslim sensibilities, it allowed the Islamic Waqf to continue to administer the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism.
source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
“In 1988 Jordan returned sovereignty over the area to the Palestinians.” Total bulls—.
You are so full of false information and totally undisturbed by that fact.
I’ll state this as calmly as I can: get a real life.
King Hussein of Jordan, 1988: “We respect the wish of the PLO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us as an independent Palestinian state.” Full text at http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/88_july31.html
His wish has had no effect on reality. The area is within Israeli control and Israel has given the waqf permission to manage the area.
The PLO did indeed create the State of Palestine in 1988, and it is recognized by a majority of the other states in the UN. Its territory in the West Bank is under Israeli military occupation, and its territory in Gaza is blockaded by Israel.
You more than likely are going to live with that aberrant opinion for the rest of your life.
I really don’t care.
What I care about is truth and reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwb8_ABxVI
Here you are, straight from the real source:
re: “In the 5th Century BCE the Greek historian Herodotus said”(sic)
(btw,a comma is absent)
And exactly how do you know what he allegedly said +/- 2500 years ago?
1.Do you have a videotape recording of him saying that? No, you don’t.
2.Were you there and did you hear him ? No, you didn’t (let’s hope).
3. So then, why should anyone believe it – including you?
Try reading the books of Herodotus, TiA, currently there are at least 16 of them published and currently available in English!
He writes in glowing terms of the culture, sciences, and abundance of Palestinian products, particularly the vast orange groves at Jaffa, sadly now completely destroyed by European Zionist immigrants, who removed them to make a public park.
Like I wrote in the article, one must look at the relevant documentary record, and the relevant documentary record, as I have shown incontrovertibly, shows that the clear intent of the Security Council was that Israel must fully withdraw in accordance with the principle of international law that acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. Your reasoning is circular — I have already fully addressed your argument, you just choose to ignore the facts presented illustrating why you’re wrong.
You’ve addressed no one’s argument other than your own, and since you are so cognitively nearsighted with respect to the truth, you’ve only argued with yourself.
I decided to amuse myself by returning to this page, to see others’ confusion, by agreeing with the author’s fallacious ideas and the (there’s that “the” word again!) hopelessly unbalanced and muddled article. The only confused individuals are those who have either freely chosen to think that the victors in the 1967 war were required to withdraw, immediately, to borders (there were no agreed and recognized borders then, or now btw) or those who are so severely indoctrinated that they can not identify reality or relevant facts.
Losers in wars and politics who are in search of excuses to rationalize their loss do what has been done in this article – manufacture lies and distortions and repeat them ad nauseam so that, as propagandists forever profess, they may be believed by the naïve people in this world(no small number!).
In fact, I did address the argument you attempted to make in the article, when everyone who’s actually read it can see. I advise and request you once again to please read it before attempting to respond to it. Trolling will not be tolerated.
You’re a lost soul. There. Your name calling is responded to with one of mine.
And, goodbye.
I did not in fact call you any names. I simply notified you of the commenting policy of this website. But good riddance, as this very comment of yours is precisely the kind of example of trolling I am talking about.
You’re so lost you don’t know what you write or what or how to think. Fact.
Good riddance to you!
I would say, teachitagain, that “An independent political analyst” by Jeremy Hammond is an accuate description, “Honest and Unbiased” could also be applied.
F.P.J. has gained an enviable reputation for debunking myths and illustration the path of truth amongst the maze of smoke and mirrors of the Hasbara archives and Zionist propaganda.
You are at a serious disadvantage when you use George Brown and Michael Stewart to contradict the meaning of UN Resolution 242, it`s a typical Hasbara Volunteer`s attempt at deflection, a technique long discredited, I`m pleased to say!
UN resolutin 242, is not the only one condemning the Zionist Israeli illegal occupation, of not just Palestine, but Syria and Lebanon, resolution 446 and 2334 are just two that comes to mind.
Then there is the map produced by the Word Zionist Congeress in 1900, showing an Israel streching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing Lebanon and Syria, confirmed in 1982, by a close friend of Ariel Sharon, Oded Yinon, at a time Sharon was Minister of Defence!
As to your “Facts”!!
Fact No 1. For close on 600 years there was the Vilayet (State/Region/Province) of Filistine (Palestine) with al Quds (Jerusalem) as the Liwa (Capital/Administration Centre) having a Mutassttifiya (Governor) with a seat allocated in the Turkish Parliament. That`s pretty much as the USA is today, teachitagain!
Fact No2. Egyptian hieroglyphs record “Filistine” some 1 thousand years before the administration of David and Solomon, and Abraham only arrived in Canaan (Palestine) some 400 years before David ruled there. There is no “P” in any “Arabic” language, it was Herodotus that first wrote “Palestine” (In Greek) in 450 B.C. Palestine is a western pronunciation of “Filistine”, only used in the West.
Fact No 3. There are dozens of “Arabic” (or Semite) languages spoken throughout the Middle East (There are many “Latin” languages spoken in Europe!). There are Jewish, Christian and Muslim Arabs (45% of Lebanon population are Christian.
Your statement, nothing distinguishes “Arabs from one another is a delusional claim, or a deliberate attempt to promote a falsehood, “Arabia” is as diverse as Europe, silly to claim otherwise.
And finally, teachitagain, Hebrew is an Arabic language, one of the many languages defined in the 19th century as “Semite” when “Semite” was first used to define “Of Middle Eastern” origin.
Mike Thompson: Can you provide sources for your Fact 1 and Fact 2? You may not be correct on Fact 1. According to the Concise History of Islam (See Google Books) Filistine was not an administrative district under the Ottomans, as they named their provinces after their capitals. Northern Filistin was in the vilayet of Beirut, divided into the Sanjaks of Acre, Beirut and Nablus: Southern Filistin was the Sanjak of Jerusalem. However the term Land of Filistin was in popular and official use, though not precisely defined, referring generally to the land west of the Jordan that became Palestine under the Mandate.
The “Sources” David are many – far too numerous to list, honest!
“Western Imperialism in the Middle East 1914 – 1958” by D.K. Fieldhouse is a broad introductory overview, but it`s great advantage is it`s comprehensive bibliography, which is “priceless”, and a good starting point for anyone.
There certainly was an Ottoman administrative system, not unlike the USA system of regional states with regional responsibilities and a Federal Government with responsibility for defence and foreign policy.
As for what they were called, well that`s a bit confusing I admit; Arabic is a range of many similar, but different dialects, words can have different meanings depending on where you are, or depending on the sentence (Engish also has words with different meanings e,g, “Live” as in live of die, or “Live” as in live performance).
I did not know of “The Concise History of Islam”, however the author is Syed Muzaffar Hussan Rizvi (or Muzaffar Hussain Syed!) who was Indian and wrote his book from an Indian perspective (possibly influenced by events after Indian 1947 independence, but who knows). The descriptions he used were undoubtedly accurate from an Indian perspective, and translated into English produced the terms you quote.
That said Palestine and Palestinians (To use English terms) have existed for as long, longer in fact, than history itself. As for Egyptian Hieroglyphs meaning “Filistine” a simple Google search for “Hieroglyphs meaning Filistine” will result in “evidence”.
The M.E. never had defined borders, rather they had “spheres of influence” based on population centres, Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad were probably the most influential, but Basra, Mosul, Tikrit, Gaza, Jerusalem, Aleppo, etc, etc, all had influence, it resulted in a system of very subtle diplomacy (not unlike the system the EC is implementing to-day). All blown apart by Britain, France and the USA.
It`s a funny old world, David!
Thank you for excellent excurse in history. I enjoyed reading your answer to ‘Hasbaric’ teachitagain, who desperately is in need to repeat his education.
Those who dispute Mr. Hammond’s observations and analysis might wish to read, “The Gun and the Olive Branch”, by English Journalist David Hirst. Less intellectual than Mr. Hammond’s writings, it is nonetheless brutally honest as to what the Zionists did to not only the Arabs but to the English. If the English had used even a portion of the effort to defeat the Zionist criminals that they did against the IRA, there would be peace today not only throughout the Middle East but likely most of the rest of the world. Certainly there would be no “swamp” for Trump to need to drain.
Please do not say ‘the English’ when you mean ‘the British’, it annoys the Scots and the Welsh.
The British Government issued a statement at the end of the Mandate [http://www.religion-science-peace.org/2015/06/19/british-government-statement-on-the-end-of-the-palestine-mandate/] which explained the objects, achievements and failures of the Mandate, and the reasons why Britain decided to end the Mandate and hand over the problem to the UN. A major factor was the Jewish terror campaign, from 1942 onwards, by militias backed up by the Jewish Agency:
“Communications were attacked throughout the country; Government buildings, military trains and places of entertainment frequented by Britons were blown up; and numbers of Britons, Arabs and moderate Jews were kidnapped or murdered. This wholesale terrorism had continued ever since.”
On that note, readers may also wish to see my article explaining the significance of the Balfour Declaration, which determined the policy course for the British under the Mandate:
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/11/02/what-was-the-balfour-declaration-of-1917-and-why-is-it-significant/
You have my sympathy, David, I get irritated with the common assumption that the Balfour Declaration was a British Government production.
It was not!
The British War Cabinet was responsible for the issue of the Balfour Declaration and that War Cabinet consisted of only 5 people:
David Lloyd George.
Lord Curzon of Kedlestone.
Edward Carson.
Arthur Henderson.
Lord Milner.
There were no debates in the House of Commons, nor in the House of Lords, five men took it upon themselves to commit the British Government to support “a Jewish home” on land that was then part of the Ottoman Empire.
If it were a comic book story, no one would believe it!
Of course Mr. Teashit, below, will say Mr. Hammond’s article doesn’t merit a reply. I guess that’s what Mossad fellow travelers say when they see a truth trap they can’t avoid. And quoting Lyndon Baines Johnson, one of the beneficiaries of the murder of John Kennedy, to which Mossad fingerprints are smeared in blood is rather disingenuous as well. What next? The USS Liberty was attacked by “Space Aliens”?
Thank you Jeremy for pointing out so clearly that both the US and British sponsors of the resolution intended there to be a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces back to the 1949 Green Line: and that omission of ‘the’ or ‘all’ before ‘territories’ does not change the meaning to ‘some territories’; the English language does not work like that.
But it is unfortunate that the two principle drafters of the Resolution have given explanations about the omission of ‘the’ or ‘all’ that have led to two false Zionistic interpretations of the Resolution.
Speaking at the Security Council when the resolution was introduced, Dean Rusk, the US Secretary of State, said:
“We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be “rationalized”; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242]
In 1976, Lord Caradon, the former British Ambassador to the UN who had presented the Resolution to the Security Council, said:
“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 [by which he means the 1949 Green 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… 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.” They 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.”
[http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267]
These statements have planted two false ideas in many readers’ minds (Confession: I was once one of them); (a) that the withdrawal line is to become the permanent international border; (b) that the withdrawal is to be delayed until permanent borders have been agreed. Neither of these ideas are supported by the words of the Resolution: read them carefully yourself. Israeli forces have to withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict: i.e from territories outside the Green Line. The 1949 Armistice agreements make it clear that the Green Line is not a political or territorial boundary. There has never been an agreed and recognized border between Israel and the West Bank. One has to be negotiated. That negotiation has to take into account the fact that 1967 is not the only time Israel conquered and occupied territory outside its borders: that also happened in the 1948-49 war.
Indeed, this is what I meant in the article about the need to look at the relevant documentary record. I was alluding to those oft-quoted statements Zionists rely on to support their misinterpretation.
I enjoyed reading your article. Hopefully, the truth will prevail.
re: “Thank you Jeremy for pointing out so clearly that both the US and British sponsors of the resolution intended there to be a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces back to…”
not.
NY Times FEB. 3, 2018 : Secret Alliance: Israel Carries Out Airstrikes in Egypt, With Cairo’s O.K.
The jihadists in Egypt’s Northern Sinai had killed hundreds of soldiers and police officers, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, briefly seized a major town and begun setting up armed checkpoints to claim territory. In late 2015, they brought down a Russian passenger jet.
Egypt appeared unable to stop them, so Israel, alarmed at the threat just over the border, took action.
For more than two years, unmarked Israeli drones, helicopters and jets have carried out a covert air campaign, conducting more than 100 airstrikes inside Egypt, frequently more than once a week — and all with the approval of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.
The remarkable cooperation marks a new stage in the evolution of their singularly fraught relationship. Once enemies in three wars, then antagonists in an uneasy peace, Egypt and Israel are now secret allies in a covert war against a common foe.
“After all jacks are in their boxes
And the clowns have all gone to bed”….
Mr. Hammond did not do his homework properly. Resolution 242 does not demand that Israel withdraws from all the territory it occupied in 1967 (from territories, not from the territories). By the way: There exists no “palestinian” Territory, it was former Mandate territory, home for the Jewish people. Furthermore: It was Jordan who despite beeing warned actively attacked Israel on June 5 1967.
1. Let me give you an example of how the English language works. This is a true statement: houses in my street have white doors. Do I mean that all houses in the street have white doors, or that only some have white doors? You cannot be sure, can you? The statement is AMBIGUOUS. Similarly, you cannot tell whether “withdraw from territories occupied” means from some territories or from all territories. But the ambiguity is resolved by the preamble which “emphasizes that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible”. Israel had occupied four territories: West Bank, Gaza, Golan, Siniai and in each of them began to install Jewish Israeli settlers, PROVING that Israel’s intention was to permanently add those territories to Israel, acquiring them by war, in violation of international law. Of course Israel forces have to withdraw from all four of the territories occupied.
2. The Mandated territory was called Palestine. One of the aims of the Mandate was to establish a Jewish National Home IN Palestine. But it was still, of course, the homeland of the other people living there. Before the Mandate they had been Turkish citizens: they became Palestinian citizens under the nationality law of 1925. On 14 May 1948 the Zionist leadership declared a Jewish State in PART of Palestine, with the borders specified in the UN partition plan. Since those borders are the only recognized borders Israel has ever had, ALL of the territory of Mandatory Palestine which is outside the partition borders REMAINS PALESTINIAN TERRITORY TO THIS DAY.
It seems you did not bother reading the article before trying to respond to it. It is not sufficient to simply repeat the same falsehood that the article debunks in great detail.
Hi Jeremy. I hope you don’t mind if I don’t agree with your interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242.
But before I explain why please could you correct the mistake in your copy of the resolution where you leave out the number of the first operative paragraph? Where it should say:
“1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace
in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:”
Don’t worry, you are not alone in altering the text of the resolution, even the BBC has felt the need to remove the numbering so that the preambular reference to the inadmissibilty of the acquisition of territory by war appears on a par with the operative paragraphs. So basically for for precisely the same reason as you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1639522.stm
In situations like this the flaws in interpretation are most obvious in the bits of the Resolution people choose to leave out.
This is particularly true in the case of 242 given the words of Lord Caradon to the Security Council moments before the draft of 242 was passed, S/Pv.1382 line 59, where he states that his draft resolution needs to be considered as a whole and as it stands, which you don’t do:
“59. Thirdly, I would say that 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 and as it stands.”
Indeed you make a point of only considering those portions of the resolution you deem relevant to your case:
“it is necessary to examine the actual wording of the relevant portions of the resolution. The preamble and first operative clause”
For those who need it the text of the whole resolution is here: https://undocs.org/S/RES/242(1967)
A good way into this problem of correct interpretation is to start with operative paragraph 3 which shows what the goals of the resolution were, who the resolution was speaking directly to and what action the Security Council wished to be taken. Here’s operative paragraph 3 :
“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;”
Evidently the goal of the resolution was to acheive a peaceful and accepted settlement amongst the STATES CONCERNED. It being obvious that back in 1967 Palestine wasn’t in any way considered a State as it is today.
Remember this was when the conflict was conceived of as an Arab Israeli one between Israel and her immediate neighbours, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. They were the states concerned the UN was trying to forge an agreement between by sending a Special Representive to the region.
And even if there could be any doubt about whether Palestine was one of the States concerned then that doesn’t explain why the PLO initially rejected 242 on the grounds that it relegated the Palestinians to the role of a refugee problem as provision (b) in operative paragraph 2 demonstrates:
“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”
So the thrust of your whole argument elides the fact that Resolution 242 wasn’t initially even about peace between Israelis and Palestinians as you suggest it was right here:
“… the Israeli position is that the Palestinians must negotiate a final settlement on borders while remaining under foreign military occupation and while Israel continues to prejudice the final outcome of those negotiations with its ongoing colonization of the West Bank. This interpretation is not sustainable.”
By the way, every State in the area in operative paragraph 2(c) is a provision which extends the scope of the resolution to also include the other belligerant States that didn’t have a direct border with Israel but did have troops involved in the fighting, like say Iraq.
So turning to the question of Israeli withdrawal, what operative paragraph 3 makes quite clear is the role of the Special Representative isn’t to oversee an Israeli withdrawal to the green line, but rather to “assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution”. The principles being those laid out in operative paragraph 1:
Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace
in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and 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 recognised
boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
So the first PRINCIPLE is Israeli withdrawal 1(i), and the second PRINCIPLE is peace within secure and recognised boundaries 1(ii).
Or to put that another way, 1(i) withdrawal from LAND in exchange for 1(ii) PEACE.
But what should already rings alarm bells in your interpretation is what on earth is the PRINCIPLE of an Israeli withdrawal if we are talking about a requirement to withdraw to the status quo ante? You either withdraw or you don’t! And if a full withdrawal was the intention why not actually say so?
The alternative interpretation is that the withdrawal was to be to secure and recognised boundaries agreed by negotiation, not between Israel and the Palestinians but, at the time at least, between Israel and the other States concerned.
To understand what was meant by secure and recognised boundaries one has to understand the state of play prior to the 1967 war where as you note the green line was merely a cease fire or armistice line where the fighting stopped in 1948/9 and not a permanent border. So what 242 is trying to do is move away from a return to the pre-existing armistice stalemate, towards a permanent just and lasting peace.
So the principle of an Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognised boundaries is actually consistent with the preambular reference to inadmissibilty of the aquisition of territory by war once one realises that there were no preexisting agreed boundaries and indeed no recognition by Israel’s neighbours that it should even exist. Remember the 3 Noes of Khartoum?
So what 242 was saying was Israel must withdraw, but its Arab neighbours can only get their land back, if they agree what land was theirs and by implication what land wasn’t theirs and therefore must be Israel’s. Or in other words if they agree Israel’s secure and recognised boundaries.
That is why for peace and to end the conflict the negotiations and recognition have to come first. Because one can’t know what territory Israel has acquired by force, until one agrees where the boundary of its own land is supposed to be!
Your accusation that I’ve tried to mislead my readers into thinking the “that the preambular reference to the inadmissibilty of the acquisition of territory by war appears on a par with the operative paragraphs” is perfectly hypocritical, given how I explicitly distinguish between the two.
And, of course, my argument stands just as it is with that distinction having clearly been made.
Thank you for pointing out the missing number. I’ve made that correction, which doesn’t affect my argument in the least bit.
Hi Jeremy,
Thank you for correcting your own error in the bit of the text of the Resolution YOU insisted readers needed to examine in order to correctly interpret UNSCR 242. Given your admission of error I am not clear how “perfectly hypocritical” is an apt way for you to thank me for pointing it out.
I note you didn’t engage with any of my arguments refuting your interpretation in its entirety. Nor with the more plausible interpretation I gave. Why is that?
As for your point about the inadmissibility clause. You make a fair point that the phrase “on a par” was too imprecise to catch the need to correctly distinguish preambular text from operative text. You have to interpret the language in each section differently too. So when you say:
“The call for the withdrawal of Israeli forces must be understood within the context of the emphasized principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war”
You actually make two mistakes. One is to imply that only the words you quote are emphasized. If you look, you don’t quote other parts of the text that are also emphasized, so that gives the wrong emphasis.
But far more importantly, you don’t understand the principle you are quoting!!!!
The text doesn’t say it is illegal to occupy territory by war, it says it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Occupying territory by war is merely capturing it. Aquiring it is about altering its legal status, as in annexing it to your territory.
So the principle you are quoting merely says you can’t use success in a war to alter the legal status of any captured territory.
Of course, pointing out the missing numeral was not the reason I said you were being perfectly hypocritical, but I can understand your need to deflect away from the reason reason for that perfectly accurate observation of mine.
The error here is yours. Pointing out the fact that the Security Council emphasized the principle that acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible does not imply that they didn’t also emphasize other points. Of course, I quoted the resolution also emphasizing another point, that members states are obligated to abide by its founding principles. Your criticism here is substanceless, and my argument stands.
How puzzling for you to tell me that the text says it’s inadmissible to acquire territory by war when I emphasized that point myself. Once again, your criticism is substanceless and my argument stands.
Begone troll!