Replies

I think I see where the problem lies. Resolution 242 states (in part): "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"

But that doesn't mean "all" territories. It doesn't say "all". Got it.

Resolution 242 further states (in part): "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.."

But then, surely, that doesn't mean "all" states of belligerency, does it?

See? Doesn't that clarify Resolution 242 for everybody? Both sides are living up to the agreement. What's the problem?

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency"

But then, surely, that doesn't mean "all" states of belligerency, does it?

What part of "all claims or states of belligerency" don't you understand. All is explicit, unlike in the description of territories.

See? Doesn't that clarify Resolution 242 for everybody? Both sides are living up to the agreement. What's the problem?

The logic of a Palestinian apologist, or so it seems to me. No, sorry, the Palestinians have never lived up to *any* agreements.

Let's see if this clarifies it for you:

"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... " --Lord Caradon, British Ambassador to the UN

Lord Caradon wrote 242. If anyone understood it, he did.

But that doesn't mean "all" territories. It doesn't say "all". Got iy
Resolution 242 further states (in part): "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.."
But then, surely, that doesn't mean "all" states of belligerency, does it?
See? Doesn't that clarify Resolution 242 for everybody? Both sides are living up to the agreement. What's the problem?

You’re right, among the principles 242 set’s out, is a call for for termination of all states of belligerency, violated on numerous occasions by the arab states.

And it calls for negotiating a withdrawl "from territories”, not "all", the result of negotiations prior to the resolutions adoption which recognized Israel would need to retain some territory for defensive reasons.

The Pentagon’s interpritation of "defensive borders" in 74 is below, similar to the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommendation in 68. You’ll note it suggests Israel retains about 60% of the West Bank, returning the rest to Jordan, all of Gaza and chunks of the Sinai, returning the rest to Egypt. If instituted, this plan would have returned well over 80% of the disputed territory while providing secure boundries for Israel.

The Joint Chiefs speaking in 68

The Chiefs made the following specific findings:

"The prominent high ground running north-south through the middle of West Jordan [Judea and Samaria] generally...would provide Israel with a militarily defensible border."

"The commanding territory east of the boundary of 4 June 1967 [the Golan Heights]...overlooks the Galilee area. To provide a defense in-depth, Israel would need a strip about 15 miles wide extending from the border of Lebanon to the border of Jordan."

"By occupying the Gaza Strip, Israel would trade approximately 45 miles of hostile border for eight. Configured as it [was prior to 1967], the strip serve[d] as a salient for introduction of Arab subversion and terrorism and its retention would be to Israel's military advantage."

"To defend the Jerusalem area would require that the boundary of Israel be positioned to the east of the city to provide for the organization of an adequate defensive position."