From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:51:56 GMT


In article n35@news.cso.uiuc.edu, eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:
>Adam Shostack wrote earlier:
>>Nope, 242 specifically says:
>
>><242> 1.  Affirms the fulfillment of the charter principles requires the
>><242> establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which
>><242> should include the application of both of the following principles:
>> 
>><242> i.  Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in
>><242> the recent conflict;
>>          ------
>
>><242> ii.  Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect
>><242> for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
>><242> political independence of every state in the area and their right to
>><242> live in secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
>>              ------
>><242> force;
>> 
>>Clearly, the UN refers to returning (some of) the territory occupied
>>in the recent conflict.  Authors of the reolution have spoken on how
>>Jerusalem was explicitly left out, as was the word "the" which some
>>people wish was in 1.i.

The word "the" was left out on purpose; no doubt about it.  However,
I don't believe the same can be said about Jerusalem.  Just because it 
isn't mentioned by name doesn't mean it was left out.  As to what Goldberg 
has retrospectively claimed [I am still waiting for someone to provide an 
actual quotation or reference]: Goldberg did not constitute the Security 
Council in 1967.  Moreover, his behaviour at the time (more like he 
represented Israel than like he represented the US) disqualifies him from 
speaking on behalf of any SC members except himself.  It is well known that 
almost all the SC members wanted a total withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. 

>Adam is absolutely correct - even the authors of UNSC Resolution 242
>themselves realized that the 1948 green line borders were inherently
>insecure and thus included the bit about secure borders for all states in
>the regions.  Just listen to Lord Caradon, one of the 2 authors of 242:
>
>       "We didn't say there should be withdrawal to the '67 lines,
>	we didn't put the 'the' in, we did not say 'all the 
>	territories' deliberately.  I happen to know these boundaries
>	as well as any living man.  They're bad boundaries."

Just for comparison:

     "Lord Caradon tried without avail to obtain Israel's consent to
     dispense with the term 'recognised boundaries' and be content with
     'secure boundaries'.  He also urged it to accept the insert of a
     single little word, the definite article 'the'  before the word
     'territories', so that the text would read: 'withdrawal of Israeli
     forces from _the_ territories'.  He appeared to be disappointed
     when he encountered a resolute rejection of these changes which
     would have altered the very significance of the resolution in two
     of its most essential points.  He tried to enlist the influence
     of the United States delegation to make Israel yield.  However, it
     declined and made it clear that the United States would withdraw
     its support from the British draft, if it were changed by the
     omission or addition of even one single word."
     [Gideon Rafael, Israel's Permanent Representative to the UN in 
      1967; written in 1973, reprinted in The Israel-Arab Reader, 
      Laqueur and Rubin, eds, 1984 edition.]

>THEY'RE BAD BOUNDARIES - these are the very words of the framer of 242.
>There is no other room for interpretation as long as 242 is considered
>the foundation.  Also, 242 clearly states that Israel has the exclusive
>right to control all territories until a political settlement is reached.
>Thus, until the arabs make peace with Israel, they have no legal right under
>242 to call for withdrawal from the territories.

I see.  242 imposes obligations on "the arabs" and rights on Israel.
Good one.  By the way, I bet you would cry "racist" if someone used
"the jews" like that.

(My personal view on 242 is that it is barely relevant any more.  It 
is also fatally flawed in that it fails to identify the Palestinians as
a legitimate party to the problem.  I don't accept that either Israel
or Jordan have any right whatever to the West Bank, and no behaviour
on the part of Jordan can justify its annexation.)

>Edward A. Shnekendorf                           eshneken@uiuc.edu

Brendan.