then it’s the territory of what remains of the entity of Palestine since Jordan and Israel declared their Sovereign Independence from Palestine in 1946 & 1948.
ShortLink http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r … revised 11/05/2012
You’ll often hear people say something along the lines of ‘UNSC res 242 calls for Palestine and Israel to negotiate borders’. But UNSC res 242 does not contain the word ‘negotiate’ or ‘Palestine/Palestinians’. It was a resolution to stop hostilities between already existing states, all of whom had pre-existing borders between them. It is not about Palestinian statehood.
“Convinced of the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;“.
Israel agreed by signing the Peace Treaty! No?
Or you’ll hear ‘Israel has a right to ‘defensible’ borders‘ What gives Israel the right to more defensible borders than its neighbours?
UN Charter Article 2, 1. The Organizationis based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
The words ‘defensible borders’ do not appear in any International Law or in the UN Charter or in any UNSC resolution. It is another meaningless, delaying point to debate. Very similar to demanding recognition as “the Jewish State”, it has no legal basis.
Granting recognition is a unilateral decision made by Independent States. It cannot be demanded and; bear in mind, there are in the United Nations, Member States who do not recognize each other. No State has granted recognition to Israel as anything other than its official name, “the State of Israel”. Did Israel recognize anyone to get Independence?
Only the final wording of any resolution has legal bearing. Discussion and opinion voiced before and/or after the final draft, are only of historical interest.
UNSC resolution 242 is very PRECISELY worded. It is precisely worded in order that ‘other words’ are not needed. If it is to be interpreted then the actual words used must be explained. Not substituted with DIFFERENT words. UNSC Res 242 is beautiful in it’s simplicity. Perhaps why the apologists for Israel’s intransigence, in order to reach their contorted conclusions, must alter what is actually written.
Every word is labored and argued over and every day a resolution is being debated, it is delayed. In drafting UNSC res 242, debate centered around two elements “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict…” Logic tells us “territories occupied” and not withdrawn from, remain ‘occupied’ and; all UN Member States are obliged to the UN Charter Chapter XI governing the sacred trust of administering territories they have under military control.
As long as the debate over ‘the’ raged on, there was no final draft. No resolution. The carnage can continue.
Logic tells us “territories occupied” and not withdrawn from or legally annexed, are still occupied, no matter whose territories they might be.
They’re called “territories occupied” because A) the Laws of War say “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army” and; B) “it is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territories by war“.
For any territory to change status, it must be legally annexed to become a part of an entity’s sovereign territories. Legal annexation is by agreement under the notion of self determination. I.e., do the people want their territory annexed. (e.g., US annexation of Mexican territories). Annexation upon an agreement is a matter of course unilateral if the territories are to become sovereign to the annexing party, independent of the previous or any other entity, state or non-state.
An occupier, cannot institute it’s own civilian law in “territories occupied”. It cannot build civilian infrastructure or civilian dwellings in “territories occupied” for it’s own civilian population. It cannot sell land in “territories occupied” to it’s own civilian population or anyone else. In fact, it is bound, by the UN Charter Chapt XI and the Geneva Conventions to PROTECT “territories occupied” on behalf of the occupied.
Of course, folk’ll argue that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because the Palestinian territories are not a state. However, the UNSC says they do apply and for two very simple reasons. 1) The UN Charter Chapter XI 2) the wars were between STATES. The ceasefires, armistices and peace agreements have been drawn up and signed between STATES. High Contracting Powers. The States have been fighting over and predominantly in what remained of the territories of the Provisional State of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. No UNSC Resolution calls for peace in Israel.
The most pertinent words used in the resolution are “acquisition”, “respect for”, “acknowledgement of”, “sovereignty”, “recognized”, “within”, “occupied” and significantly, “states”.
A few essential pieces of knowledge
1) UN/UNSC Resolutions: UNSC Resolution 242 was to end hostilities between the warring ‘states’. It’s not between Israel and the entity of Palestine. In fact, Palestine is not mentioned even though the resolution is about the ‘states’ at war over the territories of the entity of Palestine. The reason it is not mentioned, is simple and little understood, especially by those who argue that there are no UN or UNSC resolutions against Palestine because the UN is biased. This is a fallacy born out of either ignorance or perpetuated by people who are blinded by their own bias or by Ziofiers (Hasbarbarians), who knowingly and purposefully spread dis-information.
The UN cannot censure non-members. It would be ridiculous for example to expect a football club to demand someone who is not a member of the football club, to adhere to the football club rules. Like any club, the UN can only pass a resolution telling it’s Member states what they may or may not do in regards to non-members, according to the UN Charter (binding), the Laws of War (binding) and the Conventions the various Member states have ratified, (also binding). Like any club, it may pass a resolution to go to the police (the UNSC), however just as the police cannot make a non-member abide by the football club rules, the UNSC cannot make non-members abide by the UN rules. They. like the police can only enforce societies laws, can only demand that non-club members abide by the wider rules of Customary International and Humanitarian Law.
Propagandists of course, do nothing to dispel the fallacy. Instead of explaining the actual situation in order to foster understanding, they’ll willingly allow it to be perpetuated in order to generate conflict. They will even actively encourage the propagation of fallacies by deceitful means. For example RoR.
2) Geneva Conventions: UNSC resolution 242 is quite clearly between High Contracting Powers. “states” The Sovereign state of Israel and the Sovereign Arab states. The resolution says quite clearly: “states” and “sovereignty”. The ’67 war was between High Contracting Powers over an entity. Which is why the UNSC rules the Geneva Conventions do apply to the conflict, protecting the civilian population of the entity of Palestine, it’s territories and infrastructure. Forbidding any change of status, the settling of the Occupying Power’s civilian population etc.
3) Occupation: The UN doesn’t care which High Contracting Power finds itself in control of and subsequently becomes the Occupying Power over the territory of a non member. All High Contracting Powers must abide by the UN Charter, the Laws of War (and Geneva Conventions they have ratified), protecting the territories, the people, the infrastructure and the properties of those they occupy.
The Conventions are an expansion of the Laws of War, which do not allow an Occupying Power to institute their own Civil Law in an Occupied Territory. (Laws of War Art 55) They may only administer an Occupied Territory under Military rule.
4) Annexation: The only way territory outside one’s Sovereign boundaries may be acquired is by Legal Annexation. Legal annexation is by request or an agreement or through a treaty. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank was at the request of Palestinian representative. The other Arab States demanded that the annexation be as a as a temporary trustee only. Unlike UNSC Res 252 against Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, there is no UNSC resolution invalidating the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, it followed Customary International Law.
5) Previous conflicts: The “recent conflict” was the 1967 war. Not the war of Independence where, by 1949 Israel controlled some 50% of the Palestinian territories it agreed were not it’s own when on May 14th 1948 it accepted the borders recommended in UNGA res 181, declared Sovereignty over them and was recognized as a sovereignty by those borders by the majority of the International Community of States. (democracy at work folks, over riding the Arab states non-recognition). These territories came under Israel’s control via Plan Dalet, launched weeks before the Israeli Declaration.
There is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, 15th May 1948. Israel was already exceeding the borders it had just Declared Sovereignty over. The Arab States had every right to protect what remained of the entity of Palestine.
Although Israel could not ratify the Geneva Conventions until it became a UN Member State, it did declare that it would abide by International Law and the UN Charter, before becoming a UN Member State.
These territories, including Jerusalem, are not legally Sovereign Israeli territories.
6) The Palestinians : You will often hear the argument that there are no such people as Palestinians and or that Palestine is not and was never a country. That Arafat invented the ‘Palestinians’. This is another eagerly perpetuated fallacy.
From at least the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was an entity called Palestine. It was administered by the British under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (benevolent occupation). When Jordan became an Independent Sovereign State in 1946 (initially TransJordan) what was left of Palestine was still called Palestine. It’s name was not changed. It’s citizens, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Bedouin et al, were all Palestinians. When Jordan declared independence in 1946, the Mandate over what was left of the entity of Palestine continued. The name was not changed. It’s citizens were Palestinians. Those who did not live in the area that became TransJordan, did not have a right to Jordanian citizenship.
When Israel Declared Sovereignty 14th May 1948, what was left of the entity of Palestine was still called Palestine. The area of the territory has changed, who has had control over it has changed, but the name has not changed since at least the end of the Ottoman Empire. It is still called Palestine. The people who live in Palestine are Palestinians.
“inadmissibility of the ‘acquisition’ of territory by war” If it is already the Sovereign territory of an entity, they have a right to ‘restore’ it by war, as a last resort. If it is not their sovereign territory, they do not have a right to ‘acquire’ it by war.
Stephen M. Schwebel – Judge of International Court of Justice The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, who points out that:
territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word “unlawful” is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
* Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; 
* 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 and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
* For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
* For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
* For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State  in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
 Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war… “Emphazising/Affirms” are reminders of the Law/s and obligations which form the basis of the resolution. All Law is obligatory/binding. (This also occurs in non-binding UNGA resolutions, where they Affirm, Emphasize & Recall the Charter, Laws, Conventions & previous UNSC resolutions, reminding parties of what IS binding.) Finally, “acquisition” is not “restore” (Stephen M. Schwebel)
 The resolution is ONLY about what already existing “states” must do.
 Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories “occupied” in the recent conflict;
The territories ‘occupied’ by Israel in the ‘recent conflict’ of course, were the West Bank, Gaza AND ‘sovereign’ territories of ‘states’ whose boundaries were ‘recognized’ as adjacent to the British Mandate over over Palestine, well BEFORE Israel Declared sovereignty. Egyptian and Syrian territories.
Let us presume for a moment that Resolution 242 allows Israel to retain control of some of the ‘territories occupied’ in the ‘recent conflict’.
If a country doesn’t withdraw from ‘territories occupied’, simple logic tells us that they’re still occupied! Added to which there are the territories of the entity of Palestine Israel had taken by 1949 and which it has never annexed legally or otherwise. There is no evidence, not even on the Israeli Govt website, that legal annexation under International Law took place. There is no recognition from any Nation State. NADA. NO THING. NOUGHT. NIL. ZIP. ZILCH!
UNSC Resolution 242 did not give Israel the right annex East Jerusalem. Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem was condemned as invalid by UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980
Why? Simple. They were A) Territories ‘acquired’ by war. B) The annexation was not via a treaty or agreement. C) They were and still are, “territories occupied”!
 “.. respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”
‘Acknowlegement of’. Not ‘negotiate’. Not ‘recognizable’ boundaries. ‘recognized’ boundaries. ‘recognized’ boundaries are boundaries that have been ‘recognized’.
No where in UNSC Resolution 242 does it refer to negotiating borders. The Arab states and the state of Israel, had their sovereign boundaries “recognized” before the 1967 conflict. The Arab states sovereign boundaries were, and still are, those shown bordering the British Mandate over Palestine in 1948. The words used are: “acknowledgement of” their sovereignty, and (the ‘acknowledgement of’.. it is one sentence) their right to live within them in peace etc.
UNSC Resolution 242 calls the ‘states’ to ‘work for a just and lasting peace’ between the already existing Arab sovereign states and the already existing sovereign state of Israel, within their recognized sovereign boundaries
It is born out in the peace agreements between Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan, where Israel was required to “respect”, give “acknowledgment” to and withdraw from “recognized” “sovereign” boundaries of the “states” in the region. The Peace Agreements mention UNSC Res 242 as the premise for the agreements.
link to this section
Let’s look at the ‘evidence’ the Israeli Govt website puts up . None of which is anything other than of historical interest. None of which alters the actual wording of the final resolution. – (my comments in green. Mis-representative statements are in red)
Statements Clarifying the Meaning of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242
–(In which we see, time and time again, the confirmation that these territories are OCCUPIED and “negotiations” replacing the actual words “acknowledgement of”)–
Following are statements including the interpretations of various delegations to Resolution 242:
A. United Kingdom
Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:“… the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution.” (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)
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 (sic), just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary…”
–(Search as I may, I cannot find the FULL TEXT of what was said beyond the ellipses. All roads seem to lead to the truncated version from mfa.gov.il. Never the less, see what else Lord Caradon had to say from the A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity. Washington, D.C., Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1981
Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969: “As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word ‘all’ before the word ‘territories’ is deliberate.” –(indeed, leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over territories occupied belonging to the entity of Palestine.)–
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) –(leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over territories occupied belonging to the entity of Palestine.)–
ShortLink to this section
B. United States of America
Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:”To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries … would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. –(This is incorrect. The Arab states were recognized as Sovereign, whose borders adjoined the British Mandate Palestine 1948, BEFORE Israel Declared Sovereignty. Israel’s sovereign boundaries were recognized by the majority of the International Community of States as a Sovereign State. Evidence of their Sovereign borders is contained in the 1949/50 armistice agreements. Eg, Lebanon’s border is stated as adjoining Palestine. In 1950, Israel was no longer a part of Palestine. Did the UN simply forget?)–Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description… such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. –(They were agreed upon when Israel Declared Sovereignty and was recognized. The words are: “acknowledgement of”. When Israel declared Sovereignty it acknowledged what lay outside of the borders recommended by Res 181 were not it’s own. The International Community of States agreed and acknowleged that this was Sovereign Israel, also acknowledging what was not Israeli Sovereign territory.)–An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is… ” (S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67)–(The agreement of course was to be reached between the ‘states’ whose boundaries, including Israel’s, were already acknowledged by their respective Declarations and International recognition)–
President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 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 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbours involved.” –(The USA was the FIRST country to recognize Israeli Sovereignty. In doing so, the USA, in 1948 acknowledged that anything beyond Israel’s Sovereignty was NOT Israel’s )–
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. –(The resolution said no such thing. The word negotiate does not appear, “acknowledgement of the sovereignty  , territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries)– In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties.” –(“in other words” not the actual words?? The parties are ‘states’. Not the entity of Palestine)–
ShortLink to this section
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.”(American Journal of InternationalLaw,Volume 64,September 1970, p. 69) –(leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over territories occupied belonging to the entity of Palestine. Note he says “Armistice Demarcation lines”, not borders.)–
b) “The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution,the Security Council said, should establish ‘secure and recognized boundaries’ between Israel and its neighbours ‘free from threats or acts of force’, to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. –( But it does not say ‘establish’. It says: ‘acknowledgement of’ the ‘sovereignty’ , territorial integrity and political independence of every ‘State’ in the area and ['acknowlegement of' it is the same sentence] their right to live in peace within secure and ‘recognized’ boundaries.)–The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace.” (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68)–(leaving Israel as the Occupying Power over territories occupied belonging to the entity of Palestine.)–
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? –(Israel’s Sovereign boundaries were recognized by Russia in 1948)– 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)–(Only ‘in other words’ rather than the actual words. The states are required to establish the security of the ‘recognized’ ‘sovereign’ boundaries)–
Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:”We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States.”–( the words ‘agreed upon’ and ‘negotiated’ do not appear. The actual words are ‘acknowledgment of’ and ‘recognized’ )– (S/PV. 1382, p. 66, 22.11.67)
ShortLink to this section
What the Israeli Government did NOT include from Lord Caradon – from ‘U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity. Washington, D.C., Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1981.’
“It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt as a matter of fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. I was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.” (p.9)
“The principal of “inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” is clear. That requires a “withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict.” And the Resolution went on to stipulate that withdrawal should be “to secure and recognized boundaries.” (p.10)
“The attempted annexation of East Jerusalem, repeatedly and unanimously condemned in the United Nations, and the policy of creeping colonization on the West Bank and in Gaza and the Golan have threatened any prospect of settlement and peace.” (p.10)
“These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of the Resolution 242.” (p.11)
“I do not retract the phrase I used long ago about the Israeli settlements in Arab land. They are indeed “signposts of destruction.” (p.11)
While the Israeli Government is deceitfully omitting important statements from the sponsor of the resolution, Lord Caradon. While folk are busy concentrating on ‘from territories occupied’ in the ‘recent conflict‘. While they add ‘negotiate borders’ where it simply does not exist. They completely over look or ignore the fact that, even if Israel was not required to withdraw from ‘all’ of ‘the’ territories ‘occupied’ in the ‘recent conflict’, any ‘territories occupied’ in the recent conflict that it did not withdraw from, would still be ‘occupied’!
‘occupied’ territories not withdrawn from do not automatically become the territory of the Occupying Power unless they are legally annexed. Until such time, the Occupying Power is in fact obliged to protect ‘occupied’ territories, infrastructure and the civilian population.
… HOME …
If you must respond, please address the points, abuse will only show you for what you are….thx