Talk:UN Security Council Resolution 242
|
|
then Israel would already have fulfilled that request by returning the Sinai Peninsula? in 1979 which constitutes more than 90% of the territory.
- I've never actually seen an Israeli source claim that. The only relevance of the definite/indefinite article is in the question of whether Israeli is obliged to return to the old border line (in particular, the Green Line), or whether a new border line could be negotiated in the peace treaty.
But most countries delegates debating the resolution at the Security Council debate had a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories in mind.
- Is that why they voted for the amendment removing the article?
Which they meant would mean that the long term goal would be complete withdrawal.
- There's a limit to the depth to which we can go while analyzing a document. A resolution implies only as far as its operative clauses go - the rest is pure speculation.
neither does it state which should come firs
- This resolution is not a solution, it calls for peace negotiations on certain principles, but it doesn't involve action on its own right!
--Uri
It calls on Israel to withdraw from [the] (see sematic dispute later down) occupied territories (of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights) in exchange of an end of the Arab-Israeli conflict. So far, Israel has only withdrawn from the Sinai in exchange of peace with Egypt. Peace with Jordan was achieved by withdrawal of territories claimed by Jordan. Syria is not willing to make peace because its official position is that Israel has to withdraw first before any negotiations could start. West Bank and Gaza is still held because Yasser Arafat refused to end the conflict in the Camp David 2000 Summit. see also http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html
Der Eberswalder 16:28, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"Opposers of the "all territories" reading remind that it was specifically disapproved by the UN Security Council, which is clearly seen in the fact that the phrase was amended."
--This text suggests that the text was considered and amended by the Security Council. Is that true? What I remember is that the text was amended during the backroom dealing that went on before anything was actually put to the SC. Does anyone have evidence otherwise? --Zero 05:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Note
It's important to note that Resolution 242 was the product of negotiation between the various mambers of the various Security Council members as well as the Israelis and the Arabs. Once it was drafted by Lord Caradon of Britain, there were no amendments proposed, because any change in its langauge would have caused support for it to collapse. When people refers to suggested changes, they are probably referring to the earlier drafts submitted by the United States, the Non-Aligned Nations, the Soviet Union, and the Latin American nations. The John McHugoarticle (http://www.nad-plo.org/nego/permanent/borders/related/McHugo.pdf) I linked discusses the negotating process behind Resolution 242; although it obviously takes a pro-Palestinian viewpoint, I think it's very convincing.