UN Security Council Resolution 242 Context Semantic Dispute

The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, Israel's mutual belligerency with EgyptJumhuriyat Misr al-Arabiyah ( In Detail) Official language Arabic Capital Cairo Largest City Cairo President Hosni Mubarak Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif Area Total % water Ranked 29th 1,001,450 km² 0. 6% Population Total (2003) Density Ranked 15th 74,718,797, JordanThe Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan commonly called Jordan is a country in the Middle East. It is bordered by Syria to the north, Iraq to the north-east, Saudi Arabia to the east and south, and Israel and West Bank to the west. It shares the coastlines of the and SyriaThe Syrian Arab Republic is a country in Southwest Asia, bordering (from south to north) on Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. The border with Israel is subject to dispute, pending the resolution of outstanding conflicts over possession of the Gola. It insists upon the termination of all states of war in the area; guarantees the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of all Middle Eastern nations; and calls for a "just settlement" of the question of the refugees.

The resolution's most important feature is the " land for peaceLand for peace is a general principle proposed to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict by which Israel would relinquish control of part or all of the territories it occupied in 1967 in return for recognition by the Arab world. The formula appeared for the fi" formula, which implies Israeli withdrawal from territories it has captured in exchange for normalization and achieving peace agreements with its neighbors. This was an important advance at the time, considering the fact that there wasn't a single peace treaty between Arabs and Israel until Israel-Egypt Peace TreatyThe Israel- Egypt peace treaty was signed in Washington on March 26, 1979. It consisted of Israel returning the Sinai Peninsula including its oil wells and strategic location, dismantling Israeli Settlements and removing (in some instances forcefully, suc signed in 1979Events January-February January 1 Sino-American relations: United States and the People's Republic of China establish diplomatic relations January 4 State of Ohio agrees to pay $675,000 to families of dead and injured in Kent State University shootings..

For obvious reasons, the U.N. could not force the relevant parties to make a peace agreement, nor would the rather ambiguous resolution have precedence over bilateral negotiations; however the resolution was the focus of numerous semantic disputes.

" Land for peaceLand for peace is a general principle proposed to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict by which Israel would relinquish control of part or all of the territories it occupied in 1967 in return for recognition by the Arab world. The formula appeared for the fi" served as the basis of the 1979Events January-February January 1 Sino-American relations: United States and the People's Republic of China establish diplomatic relations January 4 State of Ohio agrees to pay $675,000 to families of dead and injured in Kent State University shootings. Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, in which Israel retreated from the Sinai peninsula (Egypt withdrew its claims to the Gaza Strip). Jordan withdrew its claims for the West Bank shortly after the beginning of the First Intifada, and has signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, that demarcated the Jordan River as the border line. Throughout the 1990s, there were reports of Israeli-Syrian negotiations regarding a nomalization of relations and an Israeli retreat from the Golan Heights but a peace treaty failed to materialize.

The resolution advocates a "just settlement of the refugee problem" but doesn't specifically mention the Palestinians (who were not represented in the debate). This was one of the declared reasons why PLO didn't accept the resolution until 1988; another was the refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist in accord with the Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967. The UN resolution, however, did serve as a basis for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (Palestinians being represented by the PLO) that led to the Oslo Accords. The Accords' main premise, the eventual creation of a Palestinian state in some of the territories captured during the Six-Day War, in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel is obviously reminiscent of the "Land for Peace" principle.

Both Israel and her neighbors accept the legitimacy of 242, although the two sides interpret the resolution to mean quite different things. The two sides also disagree over the implementation of the resolution. Israel generally focuses on the latter part of the resolution first, which calls for the "termination of all states of belligerency" in the area. Thus, the refusal of the Arab states to end the state of war that exists represents a material and continuing breach of 242, making Israeli security control of the occupied territories a continuing necessity. The Arab states, however -- especially more radical regimes such as Syria -- have always maintained that full Israeli compliance with 242 is an indispensable prerequisite to any negotiations, and refuse to consider official negotiations with Israel until it complies (many of these regimes, of course, have engaged and continue to engage in unofficial "closed door" negotiations with Israel outside of public scrutiny). This continued disagreement continues to be reflected even in Israel's peaceful relations with more "moderate" neighbors such as Egypt and Jordan, and is still a major stumbling block in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians -- the former insisting upon an end to terrorism as a prerequisite to negotiations, the latter claiming Israel's continuing violations of 242 as one of the justifications for their armed resistance to the occupation.

Perhaps the most widely disputed element of 242 is the call for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Israel continues to refuse to consider any large-scale resettlement of Palestinian refugees on Israeli territory, claiming that such a move would undermine the Jewish character of the state of Israel and lead to its collapse. Moreover, Israel points to the continued refusal of the Arab nations to compensate Israeli Jews of Arab origin, many of whom were driven out of their home countries after facing the expropriation of virtually all of their property. Israel's official stand at present is that refugees will be resettled either where they currently live, or in a newly constituted Palestinian state at such a time when it is established. Recent evidence suggests that a moderate Palestinian leadership would accept a "symbolic right of return" to Israel in the framework of an overall peace agreement, along with an acknowledgement from Israel of its responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem. However, numerous Palestinian groups with substantial political power have stated their opposition to any agreement that does not allow for a full return of Palestinian refugees to their places of origin within the former Palestine Mandate, regardless of whether those places are currently in Israel proper. This argument reflects an even older conflict over the meaning of UN Resolution 181, the first UN resolution to deal with the Palestinian refugees. The refugee issue continues to be one of the most intractable facets of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and continues to hamstring efforts on both sides to implement Resolution 242.

2 Semantic dispute

The interpretation of the resolution has been controversial, in particular the issue of the correct interpretation of Operative Clause 1(i), in which the Security Council calls for

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

The French version of this reads differently:

Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit

The Russian version

вывод израильских воружённых сил с территорий, оккупированных во время недавнего конфликта

In simple terms, the dispute is about whether the Resolution would require Israel to retreat from all the territories it has captured, or whether it would still comply the resolution by retreating, on mutually agreed terms, only from some of the territories.

The difference between the two version lies in the absence of a definite article ("the") in the English version (so that it means "from some of or all the territories"), while a definite article ("des") is present in the French version, so that it means "from all the territories". The change introduced into the English version was the result of a deliberate amendment made by the Americans (the drafting process being made on the English version, the French being a translation). Nevertheless, as both languages are official languages of the UN, the meaning of the resolution has given no end to controversy. The Russian and the Spanish readings support the English one, but only English and French were the Security Council's working languages, declaredly "equally authentic" (Russian, Spanish and Chinese were official but not the working languages).

2.1 Arguments in favor of "all territories" reading

Supporters of the "all territories" reading claim that the principle usually applied in international law is to adopt the interpretation which best harmonizes the meaning of the differing language texts. Applying this principle to this resolution, one would come to the interpretation that the resolution requires a full withdrawal is compatible with the English text, and is implied by the French text. On the other hand, although an interpretation requiring only a partial withdrawal is compatible with the English text, it contradicts the French text. Therefore, the interpretation requiring total withdrawal best harmonizes the meaning of the texts, and therefore applying generally accepted rules of legal interpretation under international law.

Some claim that Preambulatory Clause 2, "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" would imply a total withdrawal; however preambulatory clauses never include specific directives, and so Clause 2 does little to decrease ambiguity.

2.2 Arguments against "all territories" reading

Opposers of the "all territories" reading remind that it was specifically disapproved by the UN Security Council, which is clearly seen in the fact that the phrase was amended. They claim that in interpreting a resolution of an organ of an international organization, one must look to the process of the negotiation and adoption of the text. This would make the text in English, the language of the discussion, take precedence.

Moreover, according to them the nature of the French language requires the use of a definite article in places where English does not, so the inclusion of the definite article in the French text does not imply what the inclusion of the definite article in the English text would. Finally, as they claim that the only reason for the re-appearance of this reading was translator error, which obviously does not justify the change in the document's meaning. According to the legal principle "expressio unis et exclusio alterus" (which states that the terms excluded from a law are excluded intentionally, and the interpretation of that law should be accordingly altered) it could be argued against the "all territoires" reading.

Additional evidence comes from the authors of UN Resolution 242 itself. They explicitly rejected Arab states' request that the phrase be changed to "all" and say the following about UN Res 242:

Arthur J. Goldberg, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (1965-1967):

"It calls for respect and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every state in the area. Since Israel never denied the sovereignty of its neighbouring countries, this language obviously requires those countries to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty." "The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal."

"The Meaning of 242" - June 10, 1977 Lord Caradon, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):

"We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever." MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978

Additional comments include: Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969):

"Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949." "The Truth About 242" - November 5, 1990 Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. President (1963-1968):

"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 June 4, 1967 will not bring peace." September 10, 1968

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

3 See also

Khartoum Resolution

4 External links

Israeli government article

The United Nations
UN System General Assembly \| Security Council \| Economic and Social Council \| Trusteeship Council \| Secretariat \| International Court of Justice
United Nations Resolutions General Assembly Resolutions \| Security Council Resolutions

UN Security Council Resolutions Arab-Israeli conflict

<Hide>

Home > UN Security Council Resolution 242

1 Context