United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six Day War. Adopted under Chapter VI [1] of the United Nations Charter, it calls for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (see semantic dispute) and the "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency". It also calls for the recognition of all established states by belligerent parties (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan) of each other and calls for the establishment of defensible boundaries for all parties. It is one of the most commonly referenced UN resolutions in Middle Eastern politics. It was reaffirmed and made binding by UN Security Council Resolution 338, adopted after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a global association of governments facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity. ... List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir commissioned an analysis of UN voting concerning Israel. ... A session of the Security Council in progress The United Nations Security Council is the most powerful organ of the United Nations. ... November 22 is the 326th day (327th on leap years) of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... 1967 (MCMLXVII) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... The 1967 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Six-Day War or June War, was fought between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. ... United Nations Charter Opened for signature June 26, 1945 at San Francisco Entered into force October 24, 1945 Conditions for entry into force Ratification by the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of... United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six Day War. ... A map showing countries commonly considered to be part of the Middle East The Middle East is a region comprising the lands around the southern and eastern parts of the Mediterranean Sea, a territory that extends from the eastern Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf. ... The three-line UN Security Council Resolution 338, adopted on October 22, 1973, called for the ceasefire in the Yom Kippur War in article 1 and for implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 in article 2. ... 1973 (MCMLXXIII) was a common year starting on Monday (the link is to a full 1973 calendar). ... Combatants Israel Egypt, Syria, (Jordan, Iraq) Commanders Moshe Dayan, David Elazar, Ariel Sharon, Shmuel Gonen Saad El Shazly, Ahmad Ismail Ali Strength 415,000 troops; 1,500 tanks, 3,000 armored carriers; 945 artillery units 100 mm and up; 561 airplanes, 84 helicopters; 38 warships. ...

Context

The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, ending the state of belligerency then existing between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria. 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 peace" formula, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors. This was an important advance at the time, considering the fact that there were no peace treaties between any Arab state and Israel until the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in 1979. Land for peace is a general principle proposed for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict by which Israel would relinquish control of all or part of the territories it conquered in 1967 in return for peace with and recognition by the Arab world. ... The Israel-Egypt peace treaty was signed in Washington, DC, United States, on March 26, 1979, following the Camp David Accords (1978). ...

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. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six Day War. ...

"Land for peace" served as the basis of the 1979 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 the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace in 1994, that demarcated the Jordan River as the border line. Throughout the 1990s, there were Israeli-Syrian negotiations regarding a normalization of relations and an Israeli retreat from the Golan Heights but a peace treaty failed to materialize. Land for peace is a general principle proposed for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict by which Israel would relinquish control of all or part of the territories it conquered in 1967 in return for peace with and recognition by the Arab world. ... The Israel-Egypt peace treaty was signed in Washington, DC, United States, on March 26, 1979, following the Camp David Accords (1978). ... Sinai Peninsula, Gulf of Suez (west), Gulf of Aqaba (east) from Space Shuttle STS-40 For other uses of the word Sinai, please see: Sinai. ... To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ... The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, or Israel-Jordan peace treaty is a peace treaty signed between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1994. ... This article is about the Jordan River and its valley in western Asia. ... Sites on the Golan in blue are Israeli settlement communities. ...

The resolution advocates a "just settlement of the refugee problem" but doesn't specifically mention the Palestinians, who were not represented in the debate. 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 Palestinian autonomy 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. The Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles (DOP), were finalized in Oslo, Norway on August 20, 1993, and subsequently officially signed at a public ceremony in Washington D.C. on September 13, 1993, with Mahmoud Abbas signing for the...

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 territories a continuing necessity. 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 Palestinian militancy. The Palestinian flag, adopted in 1948, is a widely recognized modern symbol of the Palestinian people. ... The term Palestinian terrorism is commonly used to describe acts of political violence committed by Palestinian individuals or groups against Israelis, Jews, and nationals of other countries. ...

After territorial issues, 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 the non binding UN Resolution 194, 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. On June 24, 1922 the League of Nations agreed upon a document called the Palestine Mandate. ... United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 [1] was passed on December 11 1948, near the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. ... Israel (in blue color) and the Arab League states (in green, Comoros is not shown). ...

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.

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 with 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 territories"), while a definite article ("de + les" = "des") is present in the French version, so that it means "from the territories." The absence of the word "the" in the English version was the result of a deliberate amendment made by the U.S. government. The drafting process being made on the English version, the French being a translation of the English final draft.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America argues the practice at the UN is that the binding version of any resolution is the one voted upon. In the case of 242 that version was in English, thus they assert the English version the only binding one. [2] In contrast, the French representative to the Security Council, in the debate which preceded the vote, asserted: The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), formerly known as ARENA, is a pro-Israel media watchdog group. ...

the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories".

The Russian and the Spanish readings support the English one, but only English and French were the Security Council's working languages (Russian, Spanish and Chinese were official but not the working languages).

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. By contrast, even if an interpretation requiring only a partial withdrawal is compatible with the English text, it contradicts the French text.

Other supporters of a full withdrawal argue that the absence of the words "all" or "the" before territories does not mean that Israel can retain some of the territories it captured in 1967. For instance, British solicitor John McHugo argues that the absence of a definite article in the notice "dogs must be kept on a leash" does not imply that "some dogs must be kept on a leash" but clearly means that "all dogs must be kept on a lead." [3] Advocates of this view point to a presumption in International Law that a document should be interpreted in order to make its meaning clear, and interpretations that lead to uncertainty should be avoided. The Israeli claim that resolution 242 requires only a partial withdrawal from territories creates uncertainty as to which territories it could retain and which it could withdraw from, and so cannot have been the intention of the Security Council, according to advocates of a full withdrawal.^{[citation needed]}

Some claim that Preambulatory Clause 2, "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" would imply a total withdrawal; this is based on a principle under international law on how to interpret treaties (see art. 31 in the Vienna Convention, entered into force on January 27, 1980), but although preambulatory clauses never include specific directives, they can be used to interpret the operative paragraphs. Under such a view, a withdrawal would include "all territories". The representative for India stated to the Security Council: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), adopted on May 22, 1969, codified the pre-existing international customary law on treaties, with some necessary gap-filling and clarifications. ... January 27 is the 27th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ...

"It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories—I repeat, all the territories occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967."

The representatives from Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, and as worded by the representative from Mali: "wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text".

Arguments against "all territories" reading

Opponents of the "all territories" reading remind that the UN Security Council declined to adopt a draft resolution worded in this way prior to the adoption of Resolution 242.

They claim that in interpreting a resolution 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 an article in places where English does not, so the inclusion of a 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.

Opponents of the "all territories" reading also point to statements made by American and British officials involved in the drafting of UN Resolution 242. These officials rejected Arab states' request that the word "all" be placed before "territories" and have since stated the following about UN Res 242:

• Arthur J. Goldberg, 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, author of the draft resolution that was adopted as 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)

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

  " ... paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)

  "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories... Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' 1949/1967 Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17). The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council." (American Society of International Law - 1970)

  "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)

• The Russian delegate Vasily Kuznetsov acknowledged before the adoption of Resolution 242:

  " ... phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. ... there is certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient."

• The Brazilian delegate Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, told the Security Council after 242's adoption:

  "We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States."

• George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967 commented:

  "I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

• 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)

Hugh Mackintosh Foot, Baron Caradon, PC (8 October 1907 - 5 September 1990) was a British diplomat who oversaw moves to independence in various colonies and was UK representative to the United Nations. ... George Alfred Brown, later George Alfred George-Brown, Baron George-Brown, PC (September 2, 1914–June 2, 1985) was a British politician who served as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party from 1960 to 1970, and was a senior Cabinet minister (including as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) in...

Implementation

On November 23, 1967, The Secretary General appointed Gunnar Jarring as Special Envoy to negotiate the implementation of the resolution with the parties, the so-called Jarring Mission. The governments of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon recognized Jarring's appointment and agreed to participate in his shuttle diplomacy, although they differed on key points of interpretation of the resolution. The government of Syria rejected Jarring's mission on grounds that total Israeli withdrawal was a prerequisite for further negotiations. The talks under Jarring's auspices lasted until 1973, but bore no results. In the meantime, the United States proposed the so-called Rogers plan, which was also rejected by all parties. After 1973, the Jarring mission was replaced by bilateral and multilateral peace conferences. November 23 is the 327th day of the year (328th in leap years) in the Gregorian Calendar, with 38 days remaining. ... 1967 (MCMLXVII) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... A large number of international organizations and other bodies have a secretary general or secretary-general as their chief administrative officers or in other administrative capacities. ... Gunnar Jarring (12 October 1907-29 May 2002) was a Swedish turkologist and diplomat. ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: Jarring Mission report (1970) The Jarring Mission refers to efforts undertaken by Gunnar Jarring on behalf of the United Nations Secretary General, U Thant, to ensure progress on implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 following the Six-Day War in 1967. ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: Rogers Plan (1969) The Rogers Plan was a term to describe a framework proposed by United States Secretary of State William P. Rogers to achieve an end to belligerency in the Arab-Israeli conflict following the Six-Day War. ...

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

UN Security Council Resolution 242

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. ... Wikisource – The Free Library – is a Wikimedia project to build a free, wiki library of primary source texts, along with translations of source-texts into any language and other supporting materials. ...

See also

• Khartoum Resolution
• United Nations

The Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967 was issued at the conclusion of a meeting between the leaders of eight Arab countries in the wake of the Six-Day War. ... The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a global association of governments facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity. ...

Arab-Israeli peace diplomacy and treaties

• Paris Peace Conference, 1919
• Faisal-Weizmann Agreement (1919)
• 1949 Armistice Agreements
• Camp David Accords (1978)
• Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty (1979)
• Madrid Conference of 1991
• Oslo Accords (1993)
• Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace (1994)
• Camp David 2000 Summit
• Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs
• List of Middle East peace proposals
• International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 was an international conference, organized by the victors of the World War I for negotiating the peace treaties between the Allied and Associated Powers and the defeated Central Powers. ... The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was signed on January 3, 1919, by Emir Faisal (son of the King of Hejaz) and Chaim Weizmann (later President of the World Zionist Organization) as part of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 settling disputes stemming from World War I. It was a short-lived agreement... The 1949 Armistice Agreements are a set of agreements signed during 1949 between Israel and its neighbors Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. ... The Camp David Accords were signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin on September 17, 1978, following twelve days of secret negotiations at Camp David. ... The Israel-Egypt peace treaty was signed in Washington, DC, United States, on March 26, 1979, following the Camp David Accords (1978). ... The Madrid Conference was hosted by the government of Spain and co-sponsored by the USA and the USSR. It convened on October 30, 1991 and lasted for three days. ... The Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles (DOP), were finalized in Oslo, Norway on August 20, 1993, and subsequently officially signed at a public ceremony in Washington D.C. on September 13, 1993, with Mahmoud Abbas signing for the... The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, or Israel-Jordan peace treaty is a peace treaty signed between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1994. ... The Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David of July 2000 took place between United States President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. ... The Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taken shape over the years, despite the ongoing violence in the Middle East. ... This page discusses the many projects that work to create a peaceful and productive co-existence between Israelis and Arabs including the Palestinians. ... Geneva Accord October 20, 2003 Road Map for Peace April 30, 2003 The Peoples Voice July 27, 2002 Elon Peace Plan 2002 ... Arguments about the applicability of various elements of international law underlie the debate around the Arab-Israeli conflict. ...

External links

• The full text of the resolution in English
• Israeli government article
• UN Security Council discussion prior to res242
• UN Security Council discussion and vote surrounding res242
• Article on PLO website arguing for full withdrawal

The United Nations
UN System General Assembly | Security Council | Economic and Social Council Trusteeship Council | Secretariat | International Court of Justice The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a global association of governments facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity. ... Image File history File links Flag_of_the_United_Nations. ... While the United Nations is an international organization, the United Nations System is the whole network of international organizations, treaties and conventions that were created by the United Nations. ... United Nations General Assembly The United Nations General Assembly (GA) is one of the five principal organs of the United Nations. ... The United Nations Security Council is the most powerful organ of the United Nations (UN). ... The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations assists the General Assembly in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. ... The United Nations Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations, was established to help ensure that non-self-governing territories were administered in the best interests of the inhabitants and of international peace and security. ... The United Nations Secretariat is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and it is headed by the United Nations Secretary General, assisted by a staff of international civil servants worldwide. ... Peace Palace, seat of the ICJ. The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. ...
United Nations Resolutions General Assembly Resolutions | Security Council Resolutions A United Nations resolution (or UN resolution) is a decision of a United Nations (UN) bodies. ... A United Nations General Assembly Resolution is voted on by all member states of the United Nations in the General Assembly and requires a simple majority(50% of all votes plus one) to pass (with the exception of important questions which require two-thirds majority) Notable General Assembly resolutions 1947... A United Nations Security Council Resolution is voted on by the fifteen members of the UN Security Council. ...