Israel Illegal Israel and Resolution 242 You

Israel Illegal

Israel and Resolution 242

You say it's "funny" that people you disagree with are, according to your own view, hypocritical and wrong. I don't find it especially amusing, nor do I think the rather disingenuous way you go about making claims of fact that can easily be disproven -- as though you are used to debating people who don't actually read documents, and thus like to make generalizations about an entire viewpoint/those who hold it based on the pool of ignorance you self-select -- is itself "funny." I think it is sad, in fact, that instead of being able to approach this rationally and acknowledge that there are decades of disagreement precisely because the language of Resolution 242 is not entirely clear, you try to insist that your interpretation is the "obvious" correct one. Leaving aside for a moment the concrete details of this resolution and the records of its intended meaning an interpretation from the debate and discussion surrounding the resolution itself, there is a serious problem in the way you approach this debate.

Clearly you think your position is the most reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence; there would be no reason for you to hold this belief if this were not the case. Ridiculing the other side of the argument and making false assumptions about that perspective does not strengthen your evidence or your position, but rather makes your person seem ineffectual and your arguments seem adolescent. I would again ask you to actually refer to facts and cite evidence rather than trying to make this a debate about which side is more ridiculous. Your attempts to define the debate in this manner and your repeated assertions in this regard are only to your detriment, as you and your arguments seem more ridiculous for these efforts.

Turning to the actual issues at hand, though, as it is my hope we will be able to do for the remainder of this exchange, you are certainly correct that Resolution 242 explicitly does not contain the word "all." I have no intention of invoking the French version of the resolution (I won't give you any "nonsense" about that, so you may cease your angst-ridden agitation), however I find it rather odd if not, to use your term, intellectually dishonest to suggest that your interpretation of Resolution 242 as meaning Israel can stay in some territories because the word "all" is missing is somehow less of a "word/grammar game" than the conflicting interpretation, namely that Israel should leave all of the occupied territories precisely because nothing in the resolution grants them the authority or the right to remain occupants of these territories. That is, you are ridiculing and denigrating one side of this debate by accusing them of playing "word games" with this resolution and their insistence that the word "all" is implied, when your interpretation of the missing "all" as meaningful requires far more word-specific dissection and manipulation.

A quick look at the actual text of the resolution might be helpful. The relevant clause reads:

…the fulfilment [sic] of the 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: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) 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.

(UN Security Council, 1967)

While paragraph (i) does not include the word "all," a far more likely interpretation of this clause is that it means precisely what it says -- that Israel is to withdraw from territories it occupied during the recent conflict. Not some territories or most territories, but "territories occupied during the conflict." The only definitive factor -- the only words that in any way limit or define the territories in question -- is "occupied during the conflict," therefore to interpret this as meaning other than that all territories occupied during the conflict are referred to is itself playing a word game.

You go on to say interpret the rectitude of Israeli "administration" of the territories, which is in direct conflict with paragraph (ii)'s insistence on sovereignty for all peoples in the region. In addition, in what can only be an ignorance of the published records or a hope that I am ignorant of them, you say "the will of the Council was clear" in supporting your interpretation. I agree with your stance on the clarity of the Council's intent, and thus will leave it to them to disprove your interpretation. Mr. Kuzentsov, the U.S.S.R.'s representative on the UN Security Council, quotes India's statement from earlier in the debate in saying,