Text: UN Resolution 242 (1967)

The UN ^ | 22 November 1967

[yonif]

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 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 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.

Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.

[yonif]

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

This was changed to this by the US from saying "from THE territories" to imply that Israel is not expected to leave from all the areas it took in 1967. So in effect, President Bush's remarks simply reiterated this very same US foreign policy that has been around since 1967.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders which should emerge from negotiations between the parties, in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

[yonif]

Ping.

[abu afak]

I STARTED A WHOLE STRING ON THIS TOPIC LAST NIGHT.


"RESOLUTION 242: WHAT IT MEANS"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117737/posts

Surely you coudn't have missed this being a regular and heavy Israel section reader.

[yonif]

Thanks. I usually don't read the Israel section, as I don't have much time. Please ping me to your posts. I only usually read those threads about Israel that are pinged to me.

[ScaniaBoy]

The thing is in the French language version it is stated "the territories" (or "les territoires").

Anyway the Europeans will not have anyting to do with a possible peace in the Middle East.

[abu afak]

No problem.

It should be noted as it is in the many statements in my string.....

that attempts to include the words 'all' and 'the' before the word 'territories' were specifically rejected by the authors of Resolution 242 (and overall membership of the UN).

The 1949/1967 Lines are not even referred to in the Resolution.

The Resolution was really the First attempt at "land for peace".

It was understood Israel would get an adjustment to the 1967 border (especially the WB).

Hence the phrase "secure and Recognized Boundaries" (New, more defendable boudaries) as opposed to a simple statement calling for a Withdrawal to (the never referred to) 1967 Lines.

Despite recent revisionism, both Syria and the Palestinians REJECTED 242 because they knew Exactly what it meant.
only later accepting going for the revisionist "French [MIS}Translation" 'le territories'.

Israel, in a statement by Abba Eban Accepted immediately.

The Palestinians, in fact, Rejected it categorically several times, only accepting in 1989 in the lead up to the Oslo talks.

242 is the single biggest piece of Revisionism in this Short, Historically speaking, Conflict.

I have made it a specialty and area of study of mine for that reason... and the reaction to the WB settlemments/Sharon/CNN Poll was why I started the string yesterday.

[lilylangtree]

Why not have the original 1947 borders? Palis have taken over Israeli land if the real truth be known.