Israeli/Palestinian Conflict UNSC


This is why is is highly disingenuous as it is ludicrous to insist that Israel is ”illegally occupying another’s country.

Actually, Prof.Kontorovich, who is no stranger to TT readers, is not saying anything new per say about 242, he has been hammering away at this for years. After fully understanding his position on UNSCR 242, you would have to be a dunce or hardened ideologue in order not to understand, let alone not agree with his position.

Gold added, “Kontorovich has come onto something extremely important which reinforces the Israeli traditional interpretation of 242, which was also the consensus of the UN Security Council in November 1967.”

He claimed that this interpretation of the resolution also supports Israel’s arguments that the 1967 war was fought in self-defense.

New study of UN Resolution 242 could alter views of Israeli-Arab conflict

THE ISRAEL-JORDANIAN border fence. The future holds a very uncertain prognosis.

UN Resolution 242 is recognized as the key UN resolution relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict which could alter how many reveal the issues in dispute especially as regards to borders.

THE ISRAEL-JORDANIAN border fence. The future holds a very uncertain prognosis.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

As the UN Security Council and International Criminal Court return to focusing on Israel, an about-to-be-published study reveals new sides to Council Resolution 242, recognized as the key resolution relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict, that could alter perceptions of issues in dispute, especially regarding borders.

According to an article by Prof. Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University, to be published soon in the Chicago Journal of International Law, a new side has emerged in the unending debate over the meaning of UNSC Resolution 242, which establishes principles for setting Israeli borders and withdrawal from territories conquered in 1967.

Kontorovich’s study compares Resolution 242 to all 18 other Security Council resolutions dealing with territorial withdrawals and finds that the resolution was unique in its ambiguity as to how much territory Israel needs to withdraw from, with other resolutions being explicit about a full withdrawal.

In the article, Kontorovich writes that there has always been a debate as to whether the phrase in UN Resolution 242 “withdrawal from territories” obligates Israel to withdraw from the entire West Bank and Golan Heights, or merely some portion of them as agreed upon in negotiations.

Some Israeli critics claim the resolution means that Israel has been illegally occupying the territories conquered in 1967 for five decades, while some supporters claim it means that Israel has already complied by withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, parts of the West Bank, and small parts of the Golan Heights.

Kontorovich cites five pre- 1967 UN withdrawal resolutions: the USSR from Iran in 1946; the parties to the Israeli- Arab 1948 war to withdraw to positions held on October 14, 1948; North Korea to withdraw from South Korea to the 38th parallel in 1950; Belgium to withdraw from Congo in 1960; and India and Pakistan to withdraw to the August 5, 1965 positions.

He writes that the USSR had to withdraw from “the whole” of Iran, that Belgium had to withdraw from “the territory” (whereas 242 is missing the definite article “the”) of Congo, and that the other three resolutions give definitive dates or markers for withdrawal.

In contrast, Kontorovich writes that 242’s intentional dropping of “the” and not setting a set date or geographic marker shows that the UN intentionally left the issue vague – which he argues could be a decisive proof for the pro-Israel reading of the resolution that Israel only has to withdraw from some territories, as agreed in negotiations.

Next, the article cites 13 additional territorial withdrawal resolutions, including a 2012 resolution ordering Sudan and South Sudan to withdraw to their borders, where the word “the” appears five times, signifying an obligation of a complete withdrawal, while the other 12 resolutions also appear to signal a full withdrawal.

More here. H/T: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.