The Original Intent of UN Security Council Resolution 242

[mbig]

While answering Degreez in another string http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/62084-abbas-raises-entrance-price-7.html#post1058426336 and confirming his fact about the conveyance/non-conveyance of the Israeli Offer to Return the conquered territories immediately after the 1967 war, I found a Wiki entry that did so.

Soon after the portion in question was:

[...........]

The framers of Resolution 242 Recognized that some Territorial Adjustments were Likely, and therefore DELIBERATELY* did Not include words 'all' or 'the' in the official English language version of the text when referring to "territories occupied" during the war, although it is present in other, notably French, Spanish and Russian versions. It recognized the right of "every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in 1978, after the Camp David Accords, and disengaged from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005, though its army frequently re-enters Gaza for military operations and still retains control of border crossings, seaports and airports.

The aftermath of the war is also of Religious significance. Under Jordanian rule, Jews were effectively Barred from visiting the Western Wall (even though Article VIII of the 1949 Armistice Agreement provided for Israeli Jewish access to the Western Wall).[155] Jewish holy sites were not maintained, and their cemeteries had been Desecrated.
After the annexation to Israel, Each religious group was Granted administration over Its holy sites. Despite the Temple Mount's importance in Jewish tradition, the al-Aqsa Mosque is under sole administration of a Muslim Waqf, and Jews are barred from conducting services there.[156]
[.........]
Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gree0232]

I see 242 is still a bone of contention in the forum, I also see that many are trying to confine this issue to one of legal interpretation.

I cannot say this plainly enough, the IP conflict is not a legal debate. This is a cold stage in an occassionaly hot but protracted conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Those seeking to understand it would be best served by reading Clasewitz and the nature of conflict rather than spending time debating legalities that have little or no material bearing on the current conflict. Whatever the intent of 242, it does not actually settle the border between the two parties.

The simple fact of the matter is that Don's interpretation is essentially correct, but not because it was encapsulated in a UN resolution. There are two parties to this conflict, and they will have to figure out where that final border will be drawn.

To those who think Israel should get substantially more than the the 1967 line, please understand that the Palestinians will never accept it. To those who think that force of arms is the final deliberator, let me illustrate Clausewitz's view of protracted conflict through analogy.

Alsace-Lorraine. Stripped from the French in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War, it was nevertheless recovered in the aftermath of WWI. The German-Danish border that was also pushed lopsidedly into each others nominal territory for centuries was finaly settled by a neutral arbitor rather than by the repeated wars that preceeded that effort.

History is filled with warning to those who believe that force of arms alone can impose a resolution on a conflict, particularly when the land being annexed is central to the opposing side. In the long term, as balances of power shift, it only invites armed attempts to retrieve said land.

To those engaged in legal issues of the border, the rule of law will be important to maintaining a mutually agreed upon border. Simply imposing a legal interpretation on one party to conflict, and this is not a court case, is essentially trying to impose the rule of 'your' law onto some one else.

I can tell you from personal experience that such efforts inevitably go very badly.

In the final analysis, be very wary of trying to introduce, much less impose, legal interpretation as a method of conflict resolution. Either the Israeli's and Palestinians will agree upon a border, or they will continue to fight about the border. Any UN resolution, or any other state or body, that attempts to impose a solution rejected by one side or the other will simply exacerbate, and possibly further entrench, the actual conflict.

We can pressure, cajole, and induce, but the final decisions must be made by the parties involved in the conflict.

 

[creation]

While answering Degreez in another string http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/62084-abbas-raises-entrance-price-7.html#post1058426336 and confirming his fact about the conveyance/non-conveyance of the Israeli Offer to Return the conquered territories immediately after the 1967 war, I found a Wiki entry that did so.

Soon after the portion in question was:

What would you like me to address here that I havent already?

 

[creation]

I see 242 is still a bone of contention in the forum, I also see that many are trying to confine this issue to one of legal interpretation.

I cannot say this plainly enough, the IP conflict is not a legal debate. This is a cold stage in an occassionaly hot but protracted conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Those seeking to understand it would be best served by reading Clasewitz and the nature of conflict rather than spending time debating legalities that have little or no material bearing on the current conflict. Whatever the intent of 242, it does not actually settle the border between the two parties.

The simple fact of the matter is that Don's interpretation is essentially correct, but not because it was encapsulated in a UN resolution. There are two parties to this conflict, and they will have to figure out where that final border will be drawn.

To those who think Israel should get substantially more than the the 1967 line, please understand that the Palestinians will never accept it. To those who think that force of arms is the final deliberator, let me illustrate Clausewitz's view of protracted conflict through analogy.

Alsace-Lorraine. Stripped from the French in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War, it was nevertheless recovered in the aftermath of WWI. The German-Danish border that was also pushed lopsidedly into each others nominal territory for centuries was finaly settled by a neutral arbitor rather than by the repeated wars that preceeded that effort.

History is filled with warning to those who believe that force of arms alone can impose a resolution on a conflict, particularly when the land being annexed is central to the opposing side. In the long term, as balances of power shift, it only invites armed attempts to retrieve said land.

To those engaged in legal issues of the border, the rule of law will be important to maintaining a mutually agreed upon border. Simply imposing a legal interpretation on one party to conflict, and this is not a court case, is essentially trying to impose the rule of 'your' law onto some one else.

I can tell you from personal experience that such efforts inevitably go very badly.

In the final analysis, be very wary of trying to introduce, much less impose, legal interpretation as a method of conflict resolution. Either the Israeli's and Palestinians will agree upon a border, or they will continue to fight about the border. Any UN resolution, or any other state or body, that attempts to impose a solution rejected by one side or the other will simply exacerbate, and possibly further entrench, the actual conflict.

We can pressure, cajole, and induce, but the final decisions must be made by the parties involved in the conflict.

Fair enough Gree.

You essentially agree with Don. However, the Palestinians baseline demands, and stickiness on negotiations is justified by and based on their reference to international law and the weight of public opinion.

I.e why should they give up even more when theyve given up so much and what they want is legally what they are entitled to - East Jerusalem, and all the West Bank.

So what do you think of that?

 

[gree0232]

Fair enough Gree.

You essentially agree with Don. However, the Palestinians baseline demands, and stickiness on negotiations is justified by and based on their reference to international law and the weight of public opinion.

I.e why should they give up even more when theyve given up so much and what they want is legally what they are entitled to - East Jerusalem, and all the West Bank.

So what do you think of that?

There are a couple of things here.

The final border is going to be determined by the ethnic makeup prior to 1967 vs. the actual ethnic make-up of the disputed territories today. Much teh settlement activity will have to be reversed to effect this outcome, but, quite frankly, not all the settlements can be undone. We cannot simply turn back the clock and perfectly restore the pre-1967 situation. Whether we agree or disagree with the decisions that are made, there are nevertheless innocent people that will be unnecessarily victimized but the overt reversal of those decisions.

Upon determining those areas that cannot be reversed, then we will have to start discussing compensation, be that economic or simply land swaps to restore what was essentially the 1967 balance. I will also tell you that unless the final settlement is roughly around the 1967 package, the Palestinian people will not accept it. THey will not simply accept a fait accompli that says, "Well, we are here now, so tough." There must be a recipricol swap if West Bank territory is to be retained.

That being said, be very careful about introducing lawyering into this equation. Lawyers interpret the law, and that interpretation is not necessarily about what is equitable but about what is best for the client, if you will. This border is not simply a dispute that was referred for settlement by a comission. It is a border that was altered through armed conflict and whose alteration is being resisted through armed means (though currently cold at the moment). This conflict still rages, if not currently through force of arms.

The simple fact of the matter is that both sides can make an well reasoned arguement for their positions in the West Bank. Both sides can argue, and be entirely correct, and never reach a compromise situation.

The 1967 border remains relevant as a basis for negotiation. Thereafter, it is what can reasonably be expected as the only basis for adjustment, and then matters of compensation for those areas that cannot be feasibly altered.(Compensation that must be legitimate to the Palestinian people).

I have never seen a lawyer solve a gunfight. The IP conflict is essentially a lull in a gunfight for all practical purposes. If we want the law to settle this, then both sides must agree to let a bunding independant comission settle the border. I do not think either side will accept that.

 

[creation]

There are a couple of things here.

The final border is going to be determined by the ethnic makeup prior to 1967 vs. the actual ethnic make-up of the disputed territories today. Much teh settlement activity will have to be reversed to effect this outcome, but, quite frankly, not all the settlements can be undone. We cannot simply turn back the clock and perfectly restore the pre-1967 situation. Whether we agree or disagree with the decisions that are made, there are nevertheless innocent people that will be unnecessarily victimized but the overt reversal of those decisions.

Upon determining those areas that cannot be reversed, then we will have to start discussing compensation, be that economic or simply land swaps to restore what was essentially the 1967 balance. I will also tell you that unless the final settlement is roughly around the 1967 package, the Palestinian people will not accept it. THey will not simply accept a fait accompli that says, "Well, we are here now, so tough." There must be a recipricol swap if West Bank territory is to be retained.

That being said, be very careful about introducing lawyering into this equation. Lawyers interpret the law, and that interpretation is not necessarily about what is equitable but about what is best for the client, if you will. This border is not simply a dispute that was referred for settlement by a comission. It is a border that was altered through armed conflict and whose alteration is being resisted through armed means (though currently cold at the moment). This conflict still rages, if not currently through force of arms.

The simple fact of the matter is that both sides can make an well reasoned arguement for their positions in the West Bank. Both sides can argue, and be entirely correct, and never reach a compromise situation.

The 1967 border remains relevant as a basis for negotiation. Thereafter, it is what can reasonably be expected as the only basis for adjustment, and then matters of compensation for those areas that cannot be feasibly altered.(Compensation that must be legitimate to the Palestinian people).

I have never seen a lawyer solve a gunfight. The IP conflict is essentially a lull in a gunfight for all practical purposes. If we want the law to settle this, then both sides must agree to let a bunding independant comission settle the border. I do not think either side will accept that.

Excellent post.

But can you answer this;

Why should they give up even more when theyve given up so much and what they want is legally what they are entitled to - East Jerusalem, and all the West Bank?

Is the answer, because Israel will decide what it wants to give and thus their demands should be based on what Israel finds acceptable rather than international law?

or that International law is a vague and flexible notion mirage written on mere paper that is as likely to accede to israeli notions of who's land is who's as to side with the Palestinians?