Resolution 242; 1967 Borders; "illegal" even "Occupied"

[GI Joe]

Well, A, your own words against you. You are a liar.

The discussion is about the Palestinians living in E. Jerusalem, clearly indicated to not be citizens of Israel (despite your jib), and you start talking about Egypt and Syria ... but not Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and their relatively high standards of living. Yes, Dubai clearly lives in the 8th Century.

What does any of that have to do with PALESTINIANS IN EAST JERUSALEM? What does that have to do with th inequities of the system that is enforced by Israeli military might? The two previous attempts to separate themselves from Israel, and teh third attempt brewing are best not mentioned.

Nope, blatant fallacy is the best response to those who say, "Heh, Israel is going to have to deal with this, and it is best to take a hard, objective look at the facts with an equitable settlement in mind."

Nope, what we really mean is, "Jews should go live in Antartica." :shock::spin::smileyfart

Palestinians in E Jerusalem are given a choice if they want citizenship. If they dont want it they get permanent residency which gives them all the social benefits and entitles them to vote in municipal elections.

When Israel and the PA looked close to a deal EJ Palestinians requests for citizenship skyrocketed as they did not want to live under the PA.



Fearing Palestinian takeover, Jerusalem Arabs seek Israeli citizenship
In recent months, talk of a future division of Jerusalem has prompted a sharp increase in nationalization requests by Arab residents seeking to escape the prospect of life under the Palestinian Authority, ynetnews reported.
israelinsider: politics: Fearing Palestinian takeover, Jerusalem Arabs seek Israeli citizenship

More Jerusalem Arabs seek Israeli citizenship
More Jerusalem Arabs seek Israeli citizenship | McClatchy

 

[creation]

Jerusalem was again majority Jewish starting in 1860. In 1948 it was 100,000 Jews and 40,000 Arabs. When Jordan took E Jerusalem they ethnically cleansed 100% of the Jewish population, bulldozed the Synogogues, desecrated Jewish holy sites and cemetaries such as using the tombstones as floors in latrines and did not allow Jews access to its places of worship.

In 1967 when Israel took E Jerusalem they offered citizenship to Arabs in E Jerusalem or permanent residency if they did not want citizenship. They gave the Muslims control of its religious sites and allowed freedom of religion for all.
In 67 it was about 195000 Jews and 55000 Arabs. Currently there are about 530000 Jews and 205000 Arabs in Jerusalem. Israeli control of Jerusalem is in sharp contrast to Arab control.

Jerusalem was never intended to be part of a Palestinian state in any UN agreement on the partition or even in 242. No Palestinian state nor even Palestinians were mentioned in 242.
During peace talks Israel offered the Arab areas including the Temple mount but Arafat was more interested in a terror war.

Although it is a weak argument I am interested in this Israeli narrative of history. Can you please provide a decent independent source for this history? Im having trouble finding anything to back your claims up that isnt directly from Israeli supporting sources.

 

[Tashah]

Although it is a weak argument I am interested in this Israeli narrative of history. Can you please provide a decent independent source for this history? Im having trouble finding anything to back your claims up that isnt directly from Israeli supporting sources.

If you are referring to the bolded section of his post, it is available in Wikipedia.

I believe "Jerusalem + Jordan annexation" will yield this information.

{edit - not the lengthy details, but IIRC the fact that the Jewish Quarter was burned to the ground. In addition, there are many pictures available of what is decribed as desecration etc.}

 

[mbig]

As Tashah said the 'Narrative' for the Jewish side of the Recent Jeruslam history can be found many places.

As to the population portion:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)

"...5. Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census (mbig)
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

Link expired but the Ottoman Census figures, which form it's backbone, and I noted were from the Ottoman counts, are not in dispute.
The later numbers widely available.
The first line/1838 probably approximated using regression analysis.

 

[creation]

If you are referring to the bolded section of his post, it is available in Wikipedia.

I believe "Jerusalem + Jordan annexation" will yield this information.

{edit - not the lengthy details, but IIRC the fact that the Jewish Quarter was burned to the ground. In addition, there are many pictures available of what is decribed as desecration etc.}

Thank you.

Yes ive checked Wiki but find the source of its claims to be rather dubious i.e. the Jewish Virtual library.

Whatsmore the Jordanian websites tell a different story.

Thats why Im looking for a credible independent source. Anyone?

 

[creation]

As Tashah said the 'Narrative' for the Jewish side of the Recent Jeruslam history can be found many places.

As to the population portion:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)

"...5. Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census (mbig)
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

Link expired but the Ottoman Census figures, which form it's backbone, and I noted were from the Ottoman counts, are not in dispute.
The later numbers widely available.
The first line/1838 probably approximated using regression analysis.

Yes. Thank you.

Yet what argument does citing the populations of Jerusalem make?

 

[mbig]

I was merely Part of a verification of GI Joe's claim ("1860" etc) that YOU asked for independent verification of.
(And thanks for quoting/reiterating/reprinting it. Most people wouldn't have assumed the Jews were so prominent in Jerusalem's population, so early.)

And BTW, as you get more experienced in this game.. you'll will realize (but probably still deny) JVL, while certainly Pro-Israel, it's also pretty reliable.
I've noticed over the years my 'anti-zionist' opponents have sometimes used it at/against me.

UNLIKE Palestinian/Arab media, you can find a very good.... indeed the best case for 'Palestinians' on Israeli sites.
So dismissing URLs because they contain 'Jewish' or are from Israel is very bad form.

That would include 'Peace groups' like B'Tselem and many more...
And extend to 'historians' like early Morris, Pappe, Shalim, etc, etc...
and Columnists, like Hass and Levy. (usually in Ha'aretz and among many more)

This is just reality. Israelis give and get both sides.. Palestinians Don't (or Lynch em as collabortaors.)
Once again, as Ozick pointed out.... Moral equivalence does NOT exist in this case.
-

 

[Lerxst]

creation,
What we are trying here to debate is on real life scenarios, what you are suggesting is something that out of reality for all Israelis, left or right. I assure you that even the most leftist Israelies dont want to give All of E. Jerusalem incliding 180k jews to the Palis. so please lets try to stick on actual possibilities.

So it's not a possibility because Israeli's don't want it? Why is that? Part of any peace compromise is actually recognizing the party across the table deserves at least a somewhat equitable part of the settlement. Granting all of East Jerusalem is absolutely a possibility so long as Israeli's recognize that part of any compromise is giving, not just taking.

My point is lets see what the current situation is and try to reach a better place from here, as is the Palis will have to coencede on most of E. Jerusalem because that is the current statues. right or wrong that is debatable. but please lets stick on real life solutions.

This just smacks of "lets stick with real life solutions, as long as the Israeli's determine what those are...because there are lot of them in East Jerusalem and they won't want the Palestinians there."

To me that is simply not an acceptable or reasonable predeterminer for possible solutions.

 

[Lerxst]

So that I can get my head aroudn mbigs actual argument...

• Anti-zionists misuse 242 when debating the issue of boderlines.
• Israel gave back most of the pre-67 occupied territory
• However the land they still occupy is not in violation of 242 because the framers never specifically drew those lines anywhere on the map, but were specific in that they recognized the need for a secure Israeli border in light of the conflict in the region
• Therefore any claim that Israel is in violation of 242 or any other resolution demanding the return to pre-67 borders is false, as no such demand actually exists or was ever intended.

Is this close to what your OP intended to communicate?

 

[mbig]

So that I can get my head aroudn mbigs actual argument...

[*]Anti-zionists misuse 242 when debating the issue of boderlines.

Yes and even non-anti-zionists!
The revisionist view, alas, has become mainstream.
My main reason for starting the string- debunking the astonishing perversion of the original res and it's intent.

[*]Israel gave back most of the pre-67 occupied territory

Not in dispute. Sinai alone was 90+%.
All of Gaza returned and the Fence only, on average, 3% into the 1967 WB line.

However the land they still occupy is not in violation of 242 because the framers never specifically drew those lines anywhere on the map, but were specific in that they recognized the need for a secure Israeli border in light of the conflict in the region

It's not in violation of 242 beacuse yes, there is NO recognized border and the framers did indeed recognize Israel needed a small buffer for reason of defense and continued attempts to eliminate it.
Clearly In the OPs!
You need not theorize my position, it's been formed, reasoned by, and spelled out in posts #1 & #2.. which you avoided.

[*]Therefore any claim that Israel is in violation of 242 or any other resolution demanding the return to pre-67 borders is false, as no such demand actually exists or was ever intended.

That Israel is in violation of 242 is False.
But you are putting words in my mouth/Misquoting about "any other resolution"..... of which there are certainly scores against Israel.
Apparent from the amazing number, in fact, the UN's main task/obsession.

Is this close to what your OP intended to communicate?

Close but I've delineated it further above.
and...

I've also elucidated more in the past-- noting that, ie, settlements beyond the fence, 'outposts'/etc are in Bad Faith [even] in re 242 and should be Dismantled.. as this was clearly more than the authors intended.

 

[creation]

Yes and even non-anti-zionists!
The revisionist view, alas, has become mainstream.
My main reason for starting the string- debunking the astonishing perversion of the original res and it's intent.



Not in dispute. Sinai alone was 90+%.
All of Gaza returned and the Fence only, on average, 3% into the 1967 WB line.


It's not in violation of 242 beacuse yes, there is NO recognized border and the framers did indeed recognize Israel needed a small buffer for reason of defense and continued attempts to eliminate it.
Clearly In the OPs!
You need not theorize my position, it's been formed, reasoned by, and spelled out in posts #1 & #2.. which you avoided.


That Israel is in violation of 242 is False.
But you are putting words in my mouth/Misquoting about "any other resolution"..... of which there are certainly scores against Israel.
Apparent from the amazing number, in fact, the UN's main task/obsession.


Close but I've delineated it further above.
and...

I've also elucidated more in the past-- noting that, ie, settlements beyond the fence, 'outposts'/etc are in Bad Faith [even] in re 242 and should be Dismantled.. as this was clearly more than the authors intended.

Lets clear something up here. Do you think the settlements are a violation of Resolution 242?

 

[Lerxst]

You need not theorize my position, it's been formed, reasoned by, and spelled out in posts #1 & #2.. which you avoided.

Here is a prime example of your main problem, mbig. You are so wrapped up in making sure you get to take a jab at someone you will inject nonsense into the argument like accusing me of avoiding your posts. I avoided nothing.

Your posts are so long winded and full of personal back slapping and bloviation I simply wanted to establish a concise idea of what it was you were saying. Which, to a great degree, I actually agree with you on.

But you're so pent up with attacking anyone who doesn't fall to your feet you couldn't see that.

 

[mbig]

A great example, thanks!
It was Anything But "long winded" etc.
YOU asked for clarification of my positions.
I did so in just 2 or 3 Short sentences each!
ie,

Israel gave back most of the pre-67 occupied territory

Not in dispute. Sinai alone was 90+%.
All of Gaza returned and the Fence only, on average, 3% into the 1967 WB line.

Pure fact and it just can't be any Briefer than that! (23 words)
Terse, not "Long winded".

That said, let's keep these strings ON TOPIC ONLY, like my last, NOT Purely Personal/"I don't like your style".
For obvious reasons; and I won't be responding to any more personal/style attacks/Grudge posts.
thx

 

[creation]

A great example, thanks!
It was Anything But "long winded" etc.
YOU asked for clarification of my positions.
I did so in just 2 or 3 Short sentences each!
ie,
Pure fact and it just can't be any Briefer than that! (23 words)
Terse, not "Long winded".

That said, let's keep these strings ON TOPIC ONLY, like my last, NOT Purely Personal/"I don't like your style".
For obvious reasons; and I won't be responding to any more personal/style attacks/Grudge posts.
thx

Do you think the settlements are a violation of Resolution 242?

 

[mbig]

Do you think the settlements are a violation of Resolution 242?

I of course saw your post, but chose Not to answer Obviously.
NO NEED TO SEND ME PMs with the Identical question.
Do NOT.
Unwelcome/Taunting/Harrassing PMs are less welcome than insults.

I didn't want to be condescending in light of Martial law so just ignored it.

But, uh .. uh..... My Answer is in the string TITLE. (and which therefore is at the top/title of your reply)
It's also in the OP, and probably answered yet More throughout.

(that is, Again and again, basically "NO", but.. the 'outposts' are in Bad faith re that Res)

So assuming you even PMed me.. you must have something in mind.. something New you couldn't use a previous one/Dozen/Score of my posts, like the OP, and even many within other strings here, to use to 'rebut'.

So OK, let's see why you're begging.

 

[Lerxst]

A great example, thanks!
It was Anything But "long winded" etc.
YOU asked for clarification of my positions.
I did so in just 2 or 3 Short sentences each!
ie,
Pure fact and it just can't be any Briefer than that! (23 words)
Terse, not "Long winded".

That said, let's keep these strings ON TOPIC ONLY, like my last, NOT Purely Personal/"I don't like your style".
For obvious reasons; and I won't be responding to any more personal/style attacks/Grudge posts.
thx

Your entire contribution was long winded. The only reason you made any sort of concise response was because I forced you to. And you loaded it up with a personal jab at me that didn't even make sense. Which was my point. You can't seem to resist this urge for some reason as you display this same sort of behavior all over the ME forum. What's even more hysterical than your feigning innocence is your repeated violations of your own requests as you actually make the requests. :rofl

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

The topic is "Resolution 242; 1967 Borders; "illegal" even "Occupied". Got it? Personal and off topic stuff ceases or there will be thread bans.

 

[creation]

I of course saw your post, but chose Not to answer Obviously.
NO NEED TO SEND ME PMs with the Identical question.
Do NOT.
Unwelcome/Taunting/Harrassing PMs are less welcome than insults.

I didn't want to be condescending in light of Martial law so just ignored it.

But, uh .. uh..... My Answer is in the string TITLE. (and which therefore is at the top/title of your reply)
It's also in the OP, and probably answered yet More throughout.

(that is, Again and again, basically "NO", but.. the 'outposts' are in Bad faith re that Res)

So assuming you even PMed me.. you must have something in mind.. something New you couldn't use a previous one/Dozen/Score of my posts, like the OP, and even many within other strings here, to use to 'rebut'.

So OK, let's see why you're begging.

Thank you.

I did PM you, seeking merely a friendly clarification. No offence meant.

Ive used everything I need to use to answer the assertions in the OP, the use of which has yet to be answered, so bringing something new would be pointless.

I take it from all this that you assert that the west bank is disputed for the reasons youve given not occupied territory and that even if it is occupied then holding 3% is still ok.

 

[mbig]

Thank you.

I did PM you, seeking merely a friendly clarification. No offence meant.

Ive used everything I need to use to answer the assertions in the OP, the use of which has yet to be answered, so bringing something new would be pointless.

I take it from all this that you assert that the west bank is disputed for the reasons youve given not occupied territory and that even if it is occupied then holding 3% is still ok.

IOW, you have Nothing New to refute The OP and the authors statements within about Res 242.
Nothing new to add to the debate Already had within. (whether you consider it won or lost)
Already had my position, yet wanted it again. ?
And now yet again. (!)
Baffled.

 

[creation]

IOW, you have Nothing New to refute The OP and the authors statements within about Res 242.
Nothing new to add to the debate Already had within. (whether you consider it won or lost)
Already had my position, yet wanted it again. ?
And now yet again. (!)
Baffled.

Yes. My answers to the OP have yet to be answered, so I was hoping you would clarify your position and defend it in the light of my rebuttal of the assertions made earlier.

By the way, does Israel dispute the West Bank? Does it assert its claim to these areas?

 

[mbig]

The international community recognizes the areas seized by Israel during the Six-Day War as occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. The U.N. has condemned the occupation and they have required Israel to withdraw from these territories.

United Nations Resolution 242 Calling On Israel to Withdraw from Occupied Territories and Palestinian Recognition of Israel - UN Resolution 242 (1967)

Jucon, I think you need to read what "Withdrawal" means.. Exactly.
Please see the first few posts.
242 is subject to the most grotesque anti-Israel revisionism.. like everything in this conflict.

 

[mbig]

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

Did you even consider how the language was arrived at?
Stunning.

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).

THE GOLAN HEIGHTS AND THE FACTS - UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242 - A WITHDRAWAL TO THE 1949/1967 LINES?



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.

(mbig note ... later/1973 accepting the incorrect 'French Translation'/Mistranslation that because of a quirk of language included the article 'the' that was specifically rejected in the Original negotiations and Final Draft
The Palestinians Also REJECTED Resolution 242 until 1988 and then tried the same revisionist trick as the Syrians.. as all the Arabs and most others now Try.)


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.

Lord Caradon, an [chief] 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

above quote; Peace encylopedia
Below ones sourced at post bottom.


"..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."...."



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)

USA

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/Public Affairs, Yale University.. 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."

USSR

- Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

" ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... there is certainly much Leeway for different interpretations which Retain for Israel the right to establish New boundaries and to withdraw its troops Only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)



Resolution 242, Despite recent and Grotesque Revisionism as to it Meaning, provided for and Always foresaw Israel taking a small buffer in recognition of the fact it won it in a Defensive if pre-emptive war.

Ergo The Fence (aka incorrectly as "Wall"), which runs app 3% into the WB, is on "Disputed territory", not "Occupied".
Pending border negotiations.
It could well be considered part of that anticipated buffer.
There is NO Recognized Border; the Green Line just being where the troops stopped when the whistle blew; so there can be no "illegal occupation".

Certainly tho the further out settlements, aka 'outposts' are in bad faith and will be eventually dismantled.