Resolution 242: What it Means

Various ^ | Various | abu afak

[abu afak]

While looking at the recent CNN Poll (on Sharons Plan and Settlements.. it occured to me most Americans, including the Media, doesn't realize what Resolution 242 means or had intended. This is ther Biggest Misconception and piece of Revised History in the Conflict. Most people think it means a return of all territories won in the 1967 war. IT DOES NOT.. Quite the contrary.

It ALWAYS FORESAW ISRAEL TAKING SOME OF THE WB AND NOT RETURNING "ALL" or "THE" 1967 TERRITORY.

Some Statements by the Authors of that Resolution will now Follow in Several posts.But for Openers this quote:

Lord Caradon, an [Chief author .. abu] author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

"We DIDN'T say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, DELIBERATELY.. We all knew - that the Boundaries of '67 were NOT drawn as Permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever."

MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978 -----------------------------------------------

U.N. Security Council - RESOLUTION 242 Calls for: Recognition of Israel's right to exist

* An end to the state of war maintained by the Arab world against Israel * Secure and recognized boundaries for Israel * 242 DOES NOT REQUIRE ISRAEL TO RETURN TO THE NON-SECURE BORDERS OF PRE-1967

Arthur J. Goldberg, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1965-1967): "It calls for respect and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every state in the area. Since Israel never denied the sovereignty of its neighbouring countries, this language obviously requires those countries to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty." "The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'… the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal."

"The Meaning of 242" - June 10, 1977

Lord Caradon, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970): "We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately… We all knew – that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier… We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever." MacNeil/Lehrer Report – March 30, 1978

Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969): "Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338… rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."

"The Truth About 242" - November 5, 1990

Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. President (1963-1968):

"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 June 4, 1967 will not bring peace." September 10, 1968

U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 – A set of guidelines for Peace & Security What does it say?

* "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency… " * "…respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every State in the area… " * "…[every State's] right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." * "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories in the recent conflict."

What does it mean?

The Arab states must end the state of war initiated and maintained by them since 1948. *The Arab states must recognize Israel's right to exist. *Israel is entitled to clearly defensible borders. This is not a privilege, but rather a right guaranteed by international law. *Israel should withdraw from some, not all, of the territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War. *Israel's indefensible pre-1967 borders provided no security. * The Arab states should sit down with Israel, without preconditions, to negotiate peace.

[abu afak]

FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON:

Israel should not have to withdraw its forces to the pre-June 5 armistice lines. "This is not a prescription for peace, but for a renewal of hostilities." (Address, June 19, 1967). "It is clear however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders..." (Address, Sept. 10, 1968).

FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN:

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

FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE SCHULTZ:

"Israel will never negotiate from, or return to, the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders." (Address to the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, Sept. 16, 1988).

[...]

WHAT IS THE STANCE OF SYRIA AND OTHER ARAB STATES ON 242?

Syria rejected UNSC Resolution 242 because it did not require Israel to withdraw to the 1949/1967 cease fire Lines. Syria was joined by the other Arab States, claiming that the 1949/1967 Lines were not final borders.

[...]

THE ESSENCE OF UNSC RESOLUTION 242:

***242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines;
***242 mandates negotiation - give and take, rather than give and give;
***242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation;
***242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of 'secure and recognized borders', which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized.

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

[abu afak]

THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242:

"The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242], tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change...Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.' When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution [calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines] but it was not a viable alternative to the UK text...Members [of the UN Security Council] voted and adopted the [UK drafted] resolution unanimously..." (UN Security Council Resolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28).

Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242: "...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, failed to command the requisite support..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973).

Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories...Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' [1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17). The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft, which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council. (American Society of International Law, 1970).

UNSC RESOLUTION AND ISRAEL'S DEFENSIBLE BORDERS:

A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of 'secure boundaries' for Israel. They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler. The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.' (Prof. Ezra Zohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000).

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

[abu afak]

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cyv0
...

Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:


Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?"

Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did.

It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...



Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"

Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal.".."
(AND MORE)


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)


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."

+ More statements at the link at the top of the post.