Summary
Ever since its
adoption by the United Nations on November 22, 1967, Resolution 242 has been and
still is the basis for all peace negotiations to end the conflict not only
between Israel and the Arab States but also with the Palestine Liberation
Organization, even though the resolution does not apply to non-state entities.
The Government
of Israel originally accepted Resolution 242 because it is premised on the idea
that every state in the Middle East has the right to live in peace within secure
and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. This meant that
all the Arab states that accepted this resolution thereby recognized Israel’s
existence and political independence and also required them to terminate their
state of belligerency towards the Jewish state.
The Arab states
of Jordan and Egypt originally accepted Resolution 242 as the best means in
their eyes to compel Israel to withdraw to the armistice borders that existed
prior to the Six Day War. The American position as enunciated by successive
administrations has always been much closer to the Arab view, for the United
States has said time and again that to achieve peace, Israel must withdraw from
all territories “occupied” in the Six Day War with only insubstantial
alterations, a prescription that was followed to the letter in the case of
Sinai, but there even without any territorial adjustments as envisaged for the
region of Judea and Samaria.
Israel’s
expected withdrawal under Resolution 242 is based on the premise found in the
preamble of the resolution that the acquisition of territory by war is
inadmissible. Aside from the fact that the United States and many other states
have expanded their own borders through the process of war, an idea they now
hypocritically invoke against Israel, the latter’s rights to Judea, Samaria and
Gaza pre-dated the Six Day War and were derived, not from war, but from several
acts of international law whose provenance is to be found in the decisions taken
by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in 1919 and 1920 at the Paris
Peace Conference and San Remo Peace Conference. It is an undeniable fact that
the whole of Palestine was created and allocated to the Jewish people by the
Allied Powers for the exclusive purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home
and State that included all of the so-called “occupied territories” that
Resolution 242 speaks about. By accepting this resolution, Israel negated the
national and political rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel it inherited
from the Jewish people, as set out in the San Remo Resolution, the
Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920 and the Mandate for
Palestine. Resolution 242 violates the aforementioned rights that still exist in
international law and are protected from alteration under Article 80 of the UN
Charter.
In
addition, Israel violated its own constitutional law when it accepted the
stipulation of Resolution 242 that its armed forces must withdraw “from
territories occupied in the recent conflict” even though the resolution did not
require a complete withdrawal from all the territories allegedly “occupied” by
it during the Six Day War. The twin concepts of “occupation” and “withdrawal”
which are firmly embedded in Resolution 242 mean in effect that so long as
Israel continues to abide by this resolution it forfeits its legal rights to its
own national patrimony. This can only result in a future disaster for Israel
unless it categorically renounces the deleterious “land for peace” formula as
embodied in Resolution 242 that in essence is an updated UN Partition Plan
contrary to Israel’s best interests.
For the
complete text of this paper in English, click
here.