Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

PA Position and French vs. English Text

I've moved this here for discussion. It keeps getting inserted in the French vs. English text subsection and it has NOTHING to do with that discussion:

Moreover, Minister Nabil Shaath admitted that the resolution does not require a return to the lines that existed on June 4, 1967, when he declared that the PA will not accept "borders based on UN Resolution 242, which we believe is no longer suitable." [1]

What he actually said was:

I confirmed the matter of borders. Whether a state is announced now or after liberation, its borders must be those of 4 June 1967. We will not accept a state without borders or with borders based on UN Resolution 242, which we believe is no longer suitable. On the contrary, Resolution 242 has come to be used by Israel as a way to procrastinate.

That begs the question the subsection seeks to address, since the majority of the members of the Security Council (USSR, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, France, India, Mali, Brazil, Argentina, and Nigeria) made statements on the record that they thought Israel was required to withdraw from all of the occupied territory under the terms of the resolution. The other states on the Security Council, Canada, China, Denmark, Japan and the USA made no statements on the record, which dealt with the meaning of the withdrawal phrase. harlan (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed FRUS and drafting quotes pending discussion

P.S. All the material is still there in history. If anyone needs to restore some or all of it, feel free. I think we can do without most of it.

Many published sources including the FRUS contradict Ambassador Goldberg's and Under Secretary Eugene Rostow's quoted remarks about the negotiation and drafting of the resolution. Donald Neff says that clearly such remarks do not reflect misunderstanding. Lucius D. Battle reaffirmed US policy regarding "insubstantial" territorial changes in a 1993 interview. He said that over the years, on the issue of 242, Goldberg had proven to be a "slippery character".

The quotes in the article sourced to Goldberg and Rostow do not clarify or alter US policy decisions that appear elsewhere by more senior members of the government, i.e. the President, and Secretaries of State. The same thing applies to many of the vague comments made by Brown, Caradon, and Stewart that are contradicted by official statements that were made for the Security Council record.

Eugene Rostow, claimed that he "helped produce" UN 242, and has repeatedly argued that it authorizes continued Israeli control over the territories.

David Korn, former State Department office director for Israel and Arab-Israeli affairs, responded that "Professor Rostow may think he `helped produce' Resolution 242, but in fact he had little if anything to do with it." He was an "onlooker," like "many others who have claimed a hand in it." "It was U.S. policy at the time and for several years afterward," Korn continues, "that [any border] changes would be no more than minor." Korn confirms that "Both Mr. Goldberg and Secretary of State Dean Rusk told King Hussein that the United States would use its influence to obtain territorial compensation from Israel for any West Bank lands ceded by Jordan to Israel," and that Jordan's acquiescence was based on these promises. Rostow's evasive response contests none of these statements. See Deterring Democracy Copyright © 1991, 1992 by Noam Chomsky. Published by South End Press. Afterword [2] Korn's account was confirmed by the declassified documents contained in the 2004 edition of the FRUS on the Six Day War.

Sidney A. Freifeld was a counselor of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations during the years 1967-68, when Canada was a member of the Security Council. He wrote a long letter to the Editor of Commentary Magazine which challenged Rostow's version of events and the honesty of his arguments. [3]

The FRUS contains document 476 from Harold H. Saunders of the National Security Council Staff which says that Goldberg opposed any public effort to define our position because it would just get the US in further trouble with everyone. Goldberg made no statement for the record during the Security Council sessions regarding the meaning of the withdrawal clause.

Goldberg talked about attempts to add the words "all" or "the" to the resolution, but failed to mention Document 478. It explained that on October 18th Goldberg removed the paragraph on withdrawal and belligerency and had drafts circulated to other members of the Security Council while telling Caradon the US would disown it if it came to be known as the US version. There were no drafts subsequently tabled by the other members without a withdrawal clause. Document 521 says that on 12 November, Goldberg told the members of the Security Council that the text of the resolution does not prejudice the positions of those directly concerned. According to Lall, on 22 November Caradon also told the Arabs that their position on withdrawal was not prejudiced by the wording of the resolution. But both men insisted in later accounts that the wording was crucial. harlan (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So you think we can with without anything that contradicts your POV. What a surprise. Seriously, if you think this article is going to end up without the view that the resolution doesn't require full withdraw (a view apparently also held by Nabil Shaath as we can see in the previous section) you are gravely mistaken. This is a significant published view and you'd do well to self revert and discuss before removing huge chunks of relevant sourced content. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you've been complaining about quotes and FRUS material from day one. I'm no mind reader. I'm giving you the opportunity to restore whatever it is that you want.

The main problem is that the article doesn't quote Israeli officials on their own policy and viewpoints regarding 242. I cited Ruth Lapidoth in the lead as a representative example of the three main viewpoints. I have no objection to inclusion of her material. I only asked Steve to summarize and quote her, and to stop trying to write a Lapidoth, McHugo, Goldberg, Caradon, synthesis.

The article still discusses the "Israeli" and "Palestinian" POV, land for peace, the French vs. English text, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and etc. There is still a Goldberg quote on the missing definite article, and an Abba Eban quote along the same lines. If you want to quote what Nabil Shaath actually said above, go ahead. That isn't relevant to the French vs. English subsection where it was located. It is doubtful that it accurately represented the PA position. The desiderata of a contiguous Palestinian state would not be obtained by a withdrawal to the 4 June 1967 borders.

A single IRMA report isn't likely to represent the "Palestinian view" of 242 in any case. For example, it is doubtful that this represents the "Israeli view": "Prime Minister Ehud Barak today (27.2.2000) accepted the Arab assertion that U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 requires Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. Mr. Barak noted that Madrid was based on 242 and asked his cabinet rhetorically "what other recognized border is there besides the 1967 border?" [4] Ha'aretz said that outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also remarked that Israel would have to withdraw from East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights if it was serious about making peace with the Palestinians and Syria.[5] There are a range of viewpoints that the article doesn't address. harlan (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to quote Nabil Shaath. I think we need much less quotes in this article. But you can't just go excising one point of view. If we can condense the stuff you deleted into a couple of sentences, that would be awesome. Until we find a way to do that, deleting a huge amount of sourced content relating only to one point of view just won't cut it. I'm restoring the whole thing. Lets find a way to summarize it before we remove it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)