- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
As there has been much misunderstanding about whether the June 5, 1967 boundaries constituted permanent borders for Israel, one needs to look back at the original documents that established those lines. Those lines were created by a series of Armistice Agreements that followed the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
The Armistice Agreements make two points clear:
• The lines do not constitute permanent boundaries (even as post-1967 revisionism attempts to make such a claim)
• The lines merely separate the military forces of the parties
In other words, negotiations would be required to establish those boundaries.
Following the 1967 War, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which called for “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and “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.”
Exclusion of the word “all” was deliberate. The Resolution’s intent was to allow sufficient flexibility for negotiations to reach agreed upon “secure and recognized boundaries.” In other words, it reflected the reality that the Armistice Agreements had not established such boundaries.
1949 Armistice Agreements:
From the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement of 1949:
The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. and
The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.
From the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement of 1949:
It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations. and
The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.
From the Israeli-Syrian Armistice Agreement of 1949:
It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military and not by political considerations. and
The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.
The United Nations Debate:
During the UN Security Council’s debate on Resolution 242, India’s Ambassador to the UN, Gopalaswami Parthasarathi stated:
…the draft commits the Council to the withdrawal of Israel forces from the whole of Sinai, Gaza, the Old City of Jerusalem, Jordanian territory west of the Jordan River and the Syrian territory. This being so, Israel cannot use the words "secure and recognized boundaries”…of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict.
British Ambassador to the United Nations, Lord Caradon, author of Resolution 242, noted that Amb. Parthasarathi’s position constituted India’s “own views.” He explained:
I would say that 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 and as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the resolution, the whole resolution and nothing but the resolution.
…I would say that every delegation has a right, of course, and a duty to state its own views. As I said on Monday: "Every delegation is entitled, indeed is expected, to state the separate and distinct policy of the Government it represents"
But the draft resolution does not belong to one side or the other or to any one delegation; it belongs to us all. I am sure that it will be recognized by us all that it is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear. All of us, no doubt, have our own views and interpretations and understandings.
Additional Commentary on Resolution 242:
In a speech on December 9, 1969, Secretary of State William P. Rogers explained:
The boundaries from which the 1967 war began were established by the 1949 armistice agreements, and have defined the areas of national jurisdiction in the Middle East for twenty years. Those boundaries were armistice lines, not final political borders. The Security Council resolution neither endorses nor precludes the armistice lines as the definitive political boundaries.
In a 1971 New York Times op-ed piece, Eugene Rostow, who was Under Secretary of State during the 1967 War, wrote of Resolution 242:
But the Security Council resolution, following the Armistice Agreements of 1949, contemplates agreed changes in the armistice demarcation lines, in order to establish secure and recognized boundaries, and guarantees of maritime rights.
In 1976, Lord Caradon again explained that the Resolution’s intent was not to restore the pre-1967 War boundaries. He stated:
I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
A good source of additional information on the intent of those who drafted Resolution 242 is: CAMERA: Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters
The Armistice Agreements make two points clear:
• The lines do not constitute permanent boundaries (even as post-1967 revisionism attempts to make such a claim)
• The lines merely separate the military forces of the parties
In other words, negotiations would be required to establish those boundaries.
Following the 1967 War, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which called for “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and “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.”
Exclusion of the word “all” was deliberate. The Resolution’s intent was to allow sufficient flexibility for negotiations to reach agreed upon “secure and recognized boundaries.” In other words, it reflected the reality that the Armistice Agreements had not established such boundaries.
1949 Armistice Agreements:
From the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement of 1949:
The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. and
The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.
From the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement of 1949:
It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations. and
The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.
From the Israeli-Syrian Armistice Agreement of 1949:
It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military and not by political considerations. and
The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.
The United Nations Debate:
During the UN Security Council’s debate on Resolution 242, India’s Ambassador to the UN, Gopalaswami Parthasarathi stated:
…the draft commits the Council to the withdrawal of Israel forces from the whole of Sinai, Gaza, the Old City of Jerusalem, Jordanian territory west of the Jordan River and the Syrian territory. This being so, Israel cannot use the words "secure and recognized boundaries”…of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict.
British Ambassador to the United Nations, Lord Caradon, author of Resolution 242, noted that Amb. Parthasarathi’s position constituted India’s “own views.” He explained:
I would say that 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 and as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the resolution, the whole resolution and nothing but the resolution.
…I would say that every delegation has a right, of course, and a duty to state its own views. As I said on Monday: "Every delegation is entitled, indeed is expected, to state the separate and distinct policy of the Government it represents"
But the draft resolution does not belong to one side or the other or to any one delegation; it belongs to us all. I am sure that it will be recognized by us all that it is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear. All of us, no doubt, have our own views and interpretations and understandings.
Additional Commentary on Resolution 242:
In a speech on December 9, 1969, Secretary of State William P. Rogers explained:
The boundaries from which the 1967 war began were established by the 1949 armistice agreements, and have defined the areas of national jurisdiction in the Middle East for twenty years. Those boundaries were armistice lines, not final political borders. The Security Council resolution neither endorses nor precludes the armistice lines as the definitive political boundaries.
In a 1971 New York Times op-ed piece, Eugene Rostow, who was Under Secretary of State during the 1967 War, wrote of Resolution 242:
But the Security Council resolution, following the Armistice Agreements of 1949, contemplates agreed changes in the armistice demarcation lines, in order to establish secure and recognized boundaries, and guarantees of maritime rights.
In 1976, Lord Caradon again explained that the Resolution’s intent was not to restore the pre-1967 War boundaries. He stated:
I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
A good source of additional information on the intent of those who drafted Resolution 242 is: CAMERA: Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters