#6 – U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 called only for a partial Israeli withdrawal.
Claim:Under U.N. Resolution 242 Israel is required to fully withdraw from "all" territory captured in the Six-Day War.
Resolution 242
The first point addressed by the resolution is the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Some people read Resolution 242 as though it ends here and the case for requiring a total Israeli withdrawal from the territories is proven. On the contrary, this clause does no such thing, because the reference clearly applies only to an offensive war. If not, the resolution would provide an incentive for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, the former interpretation would require the defender to return the land it took. Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat.
The ultimate goal of Resolution 242, as expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement." This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution's principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. Egypt had refused to enter direct talks with Israel and ultimately rejected Resolution 242.
Withdrawing from occupied territories
The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all" the territories occupied after the Six-Day war. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied.
If there are any doubts, the literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to further explain later Lord Caradon, the British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution said, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." Similarly, Ambassador Goldberg explained, "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."
Regardless Israel has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242. Since the Six-Day War Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979. Jordan and Egypt renounced their claims to Gaza and the West Bank Territories in 1979 and 1988. And Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.
Why these territories were captured
These territories were captured as a penalty to dissuade further aggression and to act as a buffer zone against future attacks.The Golan Heights in particular is important because it is the high ground. When Syria controlled the Golan Heights they used it shell Israel and snipe it's citizen's. Every time Israel has given up land, terrorists have used it to launch attacks against Israel as can been seen with Gaza and the Sinai peninsula today, which has become a terrorist hotbed.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 7
Claim:Under U.N. Resolution 242 Israel is required to fully withdraw from "all" territory captured in the Six-Day War.
Resolution 242
The first point addressed by the resolution is the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Some people read Resolution 242 as though it ends here and the case for requiring a total Israeli withdrawal from the territories is proven. On the contrary, this clause does no such thing, because the reference clearly applies only to an offensive war. If not, the resolution would provide an incentive for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, the former interpretation would require the defender to return the land it took. Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat.
The ultimate goal of Resolution 242, as expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement." This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution's principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. Egypt had refused to enter direct talks with Israel and ultimately rejected Resolution 242.
Withdrawing from occupied territories
The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all" the territories occupied after the Six-Day war. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied.
If there are any doubts, the literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to further explain later Lord Caradon, the British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution said, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." Similarly, Ambassador Goldberg explained, "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."
Regardless Israel has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242. Since the Six-Day War Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979. Jordan and Egypt renounced their claims to Gaza and the West Bank Territories in 1979 and 1988. And Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.
Why these territories were captured
These territories were captured as a penalty to dissuade further aggression and to act as a buffer zone against future attacks.The Golan Heights in particular is important because it is the high ground. When Syria controlled the Golan Heights they used it shell Israel and snipe it's citizen's. Every time Israel has given up land, terrorists have used it to launch attacks against Israel as can been seen with Gaza and the Sinai peninsula today, which has become a terrorist hotbed.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 7
