Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

The reliability of the legal opinions of the undergrad managing editor and authors of the Harvard student journal that hosts undergrad student Danielle R. Sassoon's article "The Unmaking of U.N. Resolution 242" has been challenged and discussed at the reliable sources notice board. [1]

The material in this subsection of the article needs to be removed or refactored. harlan (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you keep opening such discussions on the boards but don't notify us on the talk page that you did? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you check the talk page above you'll find that I discussed the reliability of the Mazzawi quote with Accredited and you at great length before posting at WP:RSN. The post there on Mazzawi remained open for a week after I mentioned it here, and neither of you joined the noticeboard discussion. You claimed above that you chose not to.

The discussion on Danielle R. Sassoon and the Harvard undergrad journal is still open for discussion. If you can locate a published legal expert who says that (a) this particular English Common law maxim encompasses missing parts of speech; and (b) that it is a binding rule of law that the members of the UN Security Council must observe, then by all means refactor the subsection and substitute that expert's opinion or rationale. Self-published blogs edited and written by undergrads majoring in literature and economics are not usually employed as sources of information about the applicable principles of international law. The article already has another subsection that address the missing definite article, i.e. "French version vs. English version of text". The "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" subsection adds nothing relevant that isn't already covered there. harlan (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't tell anyone about your opening a discussion about Mazzawi at RSN either. That's why I asked why you keep doing that. I'm pretty sure that sort of thing is frowned upon.

Anyway, if that article was only published in a blog then you're right and it can't be included. Is the Harvard College Student Middle East Journal a blog? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The founder and "managing editor"[2] is a junior at Harvard who says she started a student journal "entitled" New Society: Harvard College Student Middle East Journal and that it was inspired by a Harvard Hillel trip to Israel.[3] It is a blog at Wordpress.com : http://newsociety07.wordpress.com harlan (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. Chop away. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PLO acceptance of 242 as basis for talks

The article states:

In September 1993, the PLO finally agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles.

I intend to edit this to change "finally" to "formally", inasmuch as "finally" implies that until 1993, the PLO had not accepted 242 as the basis for talks. Yet the fact is that the PLO had as early as the 70s tacitly accepted the existence of the state of Israel along the 1949 armistice lines, a position which became increasingly explicit over the years, well before 1993.

"The Palestinian National Council ... issued a declaration on March 20, 1977 calling for the establishment of an 'independent national state' in Palestine -- rather than a secular democratic state of Palestine..." (Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, (South End Press 1999), p. 68)

The PLO then released a peace plan "which stated that the famous Palestinian National Covenant would not serve as the basis for relations between Israel and a Palestinian state", and then "endorsed the Soviet-American statement of October 1977, which called for the 'termination of the state of war and establishment of normal peaceful relations' between Israel and its neighbors, as well as for internationally guaranteed borders..." (Ibid., pp. 68-69)

In November 1978, Arafat issued a statement saying, "The PLO will accept an independent Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, with connecting corridor, and in that circumstance will renounce any and all violent means to enlarge the territory of that state." (Ibid., p. 77)

In April 1981, the PLO officially endorsed a Soviet peace proposal on the basis of the following principles: "The inalienable rights of the Arab people of Palestine must be secured up to, and including, the establishment of their own state. It is essential to secure the security and sovereignty of all states of the region including those of Israel." (Ibid., pp.77-78)

The PLO issued a statement in July 1982 that: "From this it follows that the PLO has formally conceded to Israel, in the most unequivocal manner, the right to exist on a reciprocal basis." (Ibid. p. 78)

And so on. I trust this will be an uncontroversial edit, but wished to state my intent here beforehand to offer others opportunity to comment. JRHammond (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The article states:

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 the 'States concerned', Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Why is sub-paragraph (ii) of the first operative clause of 242 emphasized to the exclusion of sub-paragraph (i)? Inasmuch as (i) was explicitly directed at Israel and (ii) was understood to be directed primarily at the Arab nations (inasmuch as it effectively called on the Arab states to recognize the state of Israel), this is a prejudicial characterization that does not comply WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I intend to edit this to read:

The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the successful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, obtaining the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories and ending the state of belligerency then existing between the 'States concerned', Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Alternatively, as this pretty much goes without saying, this sentence could be removed as redundant. Bottom line: emphasizing (ii) to the exclusion of (i) here is not appropriate. JRHammond (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You may say that "In September 1993, the PLO formally agreed...but subsequently resorted to violence a few years later."

You may add the words "from territories occupied in 1967" to the immediate following sentence of the above which reads: "The resolution deals with five principles; withdrawal of Israeli forces, 'peace within secure and recognized boundaries', freedom of navigation, a just settlement of the refugee problem and security measures including demilitarized zones." Accredited (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to my intent to change the word "finally" to "formally"? Yes or no, please. JRHammond (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have clearly answered your question. Why is PLO performance unimportant to you? Accredited (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a published source which says that Israel has not violated the Oslo Accords and resorted to violence too, or that the PLO is not demanding a state based upon the 1967 boundaries, then you had better CITE it at WP:FTN and WP:RSN for discussion. harlan (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Accredited, it is not clear to me, because you commented on tangential matters and not on any perceived merits/demerits on your part of my proposed edit, so kindly just answer my question. Yes or no? JRHammond (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a simpler solution would be to state 'In 1993, the PLO agreed...' This avoids both the implication that prior to 1993, it did not agree (implied by "finally"), and the implication that prior to 1992 it did agree, informally or tacitly (implied by "formally"). HupHollandHup (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, User:HupHollandHup. A very good and reasonable suggestion. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

+1 No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Accredited (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the change as per the above agreement. I also withdraw my other proposed edit. Upon a second reading, it seems okay as is. JRHammond (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Accredited's unsourced material and deletions

Accredited is trying to write unsourced editorials which say that there are sharp disagreements between the US and Israel over the interpretation of the resolution. There are already several sources, including Rusk, which say that.

He is also trying to add more quoted material about straightening or rationalizing the borders. 90 percent of the article consists of quotes from the MFA, CAMERA, and the FRUS. They more than adequately address that topic.

This resolution is famous for its ambiguity. Accredited has already deleted policy statements, made by Brown, that Caradon, Parthasarathi (India), and Berad (France) arranged beforehand to have read into the record on the day the resolution was adopted. Several published sources said was done in order to secure the Soviet vote. He also has deleted Browns subsequent explanation regarding (a) the meaning of the withdrawal clause; (b) the authenticity of the French version; (c) the possibility of straightening the borders; (d) his discussions and advice to the Israelis during the drafting and negotiation of the resolution. Accredited substituted yet another ambiguous comment about straightening the borders in its place. harlan (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest, once again, that we summarize the various published views on the matter and keep the quotes to a minimum. All this over quoting is an obvious attempt to influence the reader's conclusions, and that's not our job here.

To get the ball rolling, here's what I think the most frequently published views are:

• Definite article issue:
• Israel must withdraw from all the territories.
• Israel must withdraw from most territories with minor negotiated border corrections expected.
• Israel must withdraw from some territories.
• Borders issue:
  • 1967 borders (with or without modifications) are now Israel's borders.
  • UNGA 181 borders are Israel's borders.

Did I forget anything? If this seems ok to everyone, I suggest the next thing is writing it up nicely (with no quotes, only refs) here on the talk page, and hopefully we can reach something we can put in the article and remove all the crap. We could mention in a few words the difference between the English and French versions and get rid of that whole section. We could cut down the negotiation process section substantially. We could probably remove a lot more stuff and start getting this article into some kind of shape.

Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You restored the "quote farm", despite the fact that it contained unsourced editorial statements made in the voice of the encyclopedia. It is not Wikipedia's job to say the statements of British and American officials provide "key evidence" to support the "some territories" reading, and then deliberately obscure actual policy statements that were made by the relevant American and British officials. That requires an explanation from a published source, not a synthesis cobbled together on the article talk page. The policy is to use the main template and split up the article if it gets too large.

Kissinger said that "a flood of words" was used to justify the various demands and that it obscured rather than illuminated the fundamental positions. McHugo and others have cited the MFA's misuse of quotes on its website to suggest the resolution authorized Israel to retain some territories. There have also been books and articles written by insiders, like David Aaron Miller: [4]; David Korn: [5]; Sidney Freifeld: [6]; and others like Perry and Neff which say that many American and Britih officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking have acted as Israel's attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. That criticism is notable and its inclusion in the article is warranted. It has been leveled at former officials, including Aurthur Goldberg, Eugene Rostow, Michael Stewart, and Elliot Abrams. harlan (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You deleted a huge chunk of text, some of which has been in the article for a while, without discussion. I reverted your whole deletion. I didn't check the sources one by one.

From your response above I gather you're not interested in finding some sort of compromise that will include all published views and that everyone can live with, you're only interested in getting your POV in and spamming the article with quotes in the hope you'll influence the opinion of the reader.

This is getting tiresome. I'd like to remind you that this article is under WP:General Sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Correction, 90 percent of the original article's content was quoted directly from MFA, CAMERA, and JCPA websites and it contained very long chery-picked quotes of Caradon's remarks from the GWU Symposium. I added some additional quotes from the same Symposium that said Israel was violating 242 and that everyone assumed the bulk of the occupied territories would be returned to Jordan. There was a very long discussion about that. Goldberg's and Eban's viewpoints were still represented in the article's content after I deleted the FRUS material and the quotes about "drafting" the resolution. In any event, I added Ruth Lapidoth's viewpoint and cited her JCPA article. You've deleted material from Dugard, and a host of others on non-recognition based upon resolution 242. That material is no longer reflected in the article's content, and it isn't included in your proposed list. harlan (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If I missed something do feel free to point it out. Also, it's not a "proposed list". It's a list of the main published views as far as I could remember. It's not supposed to look like that in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I call on you to substantiate or retract your allegation on unsourced material and deletions.

I have only replaced Mazzawi's unreliable text with the correct statement as qtd. in the American Journal of International Law. Accredited (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Your additions to the context section do not add anything new, or clarify the positions, since both Rusk and Brown said the borders could be rationalized or straightened out and demilitarized zones established in much fewer words. The resolution provided for DMZs and Reagan's comments about Israel not returning to a situation where it was in artillery range makes no mention of a right to retain any territory. During the first Gulf War, it was demonstrated that all of Israel and the occupied territories are within range of SCUD missiles and that borders don't stop missiles. Reagan's remarks about Jerusalem being unified do not represent any change in US policy regarding internationalization.

The FRUS says the Rostow telegram was approved by Rostow, not Rusk. The paragraph you are quoting begins with the words "Rostow said" and it does not actually end with the word "Rusk". It presents Rostow's views about the resolution, and those have been publicly dismissed by Korn, Freifeld, and other officials as incorrect.

The American Journal of International Law (AJIL) has been published quarterly since 1907, that isn't a readily verifiable citation. But CAMERA is quoting a specific Rostow article that merely quotes Brown on the missing definite article. On the other hand, the quote from Mazzawi is accurate and sourced to a specific edition, May 1978, "The Middle East" magazine and speaks about the the missing definite article, the authenticity of the French version, the meaning of the withdrawal clause, and Brown's discussions with the Israeli's. Mazzai, Lall, and Moore all recount the 22 November meeting where Caradon arranged beforehand to have the Indian representative read the official policy statements made by Brown regarding territorial aggrandizement into the record. He said that Israel could not expand its borders, and that Israel must withdraw. I'm going to add that episode to the article. harlan (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my call to substantiate your allegation on unsourced material and deletions.

In the first telegram Rusk said that "the difference between pre-June 5 positions and secure national boundaries was an important difference."

The second telegram that starts "Rostow said" is also signed Rusk. Both are brief.

Mazzawi's text is irrational and clearly unreliable.

On the one hand he says that "It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included." On the other hand he says "But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less." Does that make sense? Furthermore, he contradicts himself by saying that "The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war." Again he switches, "The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only minor border changes from the old frontiers - just to straighten the lines." This is quite misleading and an insult to the intelligence of the readers.

However, CAMERA's quote of Brown from the Rostow article is clearly reliable and consistent.

[Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.

Reagan's statement is self-explanatory.

The British policy is irrelevant to the meaning of Resolution 242 as I already stated:

You chose to ignore Caradon's subsequent remarks just prior to the adoption of Resolution 242:

"Secondly, the draft resolution which we have prepared is not a British text. It is the result of close and prolonged consultation with both sides and with all members of this Council. As I have respectfully said, every member of this Council has made a contribution in the search for common ground on which we can go forward."

Furthermore, British Foreign Secretary George Brown had said:

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.

Lord Caradon speaks for himself. You are not his spokesman. As he said on Nov. 22, 1967: "All of us, no doubt, have our own views and interpretations and understandings. I explained my own when I spoke on Monday last. On these matters each delegation rightly speaks only for itself."Accredited (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA has clipped the Brown quote. I'm going to use the quote that provides the most context in any event. You and NNMNG have been complaining about Caradon quotes, but I'm going to add the account from Lall. Caradon arranged beforhand to have Brown's statements read by the Indian representative so he could say he stood by those declarations. I'll add some quotes from Meir, Rabin, Barak, and Olmert too since no one seems to want to discuss Israeli policy statements. harlan (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly tried to work with you to find a way to make this article look more like something you'd find in an encyclopedia and less like a quote farm combined with a legal document. You have yet to offer any sort of compromise. Not once. You don't even comment on my suggestions. All you do is delete chunks of text you don't like from the article and flood this page with more quotes without engaging in substantial discussion. I'm tired of this. If you don't start to engage in some real discussion, I'm going to take this to AE.

That goes for you too, Accredited. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reagan administration actually did publish statements about the internationalization of Jerusalem, and the President said he would veto any legislation that would recognize Jerusalem as the Capital or move the US Embassy there.

You have a short memory on cooperation. You complained about the quote farm, so I removed all of the FRUS material and the redundant drafting section material about the missing definite article/border straightening and asked you to restore whatever you thought was necessary. That was a compromise.

I've explained that this resolution is an international legal instrument that has been incorporated by reference in several binding agreements including: the Camp David Framework Agreement, the Declaration of Principles of the Oslo Accords, and the Quartet Roadmap Agreement. Many states have cited it as the basis for their sanctions and non-recognition. The EU Minister's statement provides an example. You deleted 100 percent of that material about state responsibility for wrongful acts and non-recognition. Inclusion of that material actually is non-negotiable. The article doesn't have any actual policy statements made by Israeli PMs regarding 242. Olmert actually did discuss the steps required to implement the resolution [7] harlan (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Accredited if you want to quote footnote 7 you need to quote the portion of Document 455 where it appears:
Our best answer is that we stand by that pledge, but the only way to make good on it is to have a genuine peace. The tough question is whether we'd force Israel back to 4 June borders if the Arabs accepted terms that amounted to an honest peace settlement. Secretary Rusk told the Yugoslav Foreign Minister: "The US had no problem with frontiers as they existed before the outbreak of hostilities. If we are talking about national frontiers--in a state of peace--then we will work toward restoring them."/7/ But we all know that could lead to a tangle with the Israelis.
/7/Rusk met with Foreign Minister Nikezic on August 30. According to telegram 30825 to Belgrade, September 1, which summarizes the conversation, Rusk said the key to a settlement was to end the state of war and belligerence and that if a way could be found to deal with this, other things would fall into place; the difference between pre-June 5 positions and secure national boundaries was an important difference. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27 ARAB-ISR)

Rusk subsequently told Eban that US support for secure permanent frontiers doesn't mean we support territorial changes. See Document 487 October 24, 1967. Both Documents were already cited in the FRUS section of the article. Rusk's remarks about straightening the borders already appears in the context section. harlan (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As Johnson's last letter to Tito said "We have no preconception on frontiers as such." Accredited (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added that full quote to the drafting section for you. He was saying that the US does not interpret the draft resolution to mean that Israel could alter the frontiers to the Arabs detriment. I've also corrected numerous misquotes that cited the JCPA, CAMERA, President Johnson's 19 June 1967 speech to the Educators, and George Brown's memoir "In My Way". harlan (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Accredited you keep deleting official policy statements made by Brown during the UN debates and another quote that mentions his discussions with Israeli officials and the authenticity of the French version of the resolution. Those quotes are third party verifiable and have been published by WP:RS sources. Your edit summary simply says "Quote unreliable. A statesman in Brown's caliber would not make such an inconsistent statement." Glenn Perry actually cited Brown as a statesman who made contradictory statements:

"Subsequent statements by particular statesmen who were involved in the drafting and passage of the resolution (e.g. George Brown and Lord Caradon) are not conclusive, particularly when they contradict what they said during the UN debates in 1967. For several statements in this category, see Moore, op.cit., II, pp. 1024-1144 and Weil, in Ibid., p. 321."

That observation and source is already cited in the Context section of the article.

The policy in WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

A number of quotes from CAMERA, JCPA, and IMRA have been corrected by adding the portions that mentioned the withdrawal clause. Those appear to have been intentionally omitted. harlan (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again.

I have only replaced Mazzawi's unreliable text with the correct statement as qtd. in the American Journal of International Law.

Mazzawi's text is irrational and clearly unreliable.

On the one hand he says that "It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included." On the other hand he says "But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less." Does that make sense? Furthermore, he contradicts himself by saying that "The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war." Again he switches, "The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only minor border changes from the old frontiers - just to straighten the lines." This is quite misleading and an insult to the intelligence of the readers.

However, CAMERA's quote of Brown from the Rostow article is clearly reliable and consistent.

[Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.

The British policy is irrelevant to the meaning of Resolution 242 as I already stated:

You chose to ignore Caradon's subsequent remarks just prior to the adoption of Resolution 242: "Secondly, the draft resolution which we have prepared is not a British text. It is the result of close and prolonged consultation with both sides and with all members of this Council. As I have respectfully said, every member of this Council has made a contribution in the search for common ground on which we can go forward."

Furthermore, British Foreign Secretary George Brown had said:

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.

Lord Caradon speaks for himself. You are not his spokesman. As he said on Nov. 22, 1967: "All of us, no doubt, have our own views and interpretations and understandings. I explained my own when I spoke on Monday last. On these matters each delegation rightly speaks only for itself." Accredited (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The CAMERA quote left out Brown's remarks about (i) the de facto annexation of Arab territory that had already occurred; (ii) Israel's desire to permanently colonize the Arab territory; and (iii) that Israel would have to withdraw. The policy regarding CAMERA is that they are not a very reliable source, and that they must be cited with great care. A number of sources comment that Eugene Rostow held extreme views, e.g. Glenn Perry, David Korn, Sidney Freifeld, Donald Neff, etc.

David Korn and Sidney A. Freifeld both published very significant comments about the meaning of resolution 242 and attacked the credibility of Eugene Rostow's published accounts about his involvement in drafting the resolution and his interpretation.[8] Those remarks keep disappearing from the article. If you are going to cite Rostow and CAMERA, then NPOV requires that those opposing viewpoints be included.

When Caradon "spoke on Monday" he quoted Brown's policy statements that were made during the General Assembly debates. Each delegation can only "speak for itself" if you stop deleting what they said. The majority of the 15 delegations made statements, for the record, that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and that this resolution requires Israel to withdraw from all the territories occupied during the 1967 war. According to WP:VALID Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views - and while policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such. The article already contains plenty of quotes about the vague possibility of "mutually" agreed minor border rectifications, and the omission of the definite article. Putting in more of those doesn't alter the majority viewpoint. You are deleting the only reference to British discussions with Israeli officials and British views about the authenticity of the French version. I don't think you are doing that for educational reasons.

I don't have to be Caradon's spokesman to cite published statements that he made, or the analysis of those comments from the published works of Michael Lynk, Musa E. Mazzawi, Glenn Perry, Donald Neff, and etc. NOTABILITY is another criteria for inclusion. The observation that Caradon and Brown made some contradictory statements that were not conclusive is mentioned by a number of sources. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. harlan (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mazzawi's Brown quote is contradicted by the quote from "In My Way, George Brown Memoirs" that appears in the article.

It is inconceivable that after having said that "It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included" --which appears in both quotes--that he would say "But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less." Furthermore, that "The French text is equally legitimate" and that "the Israelis knew this." The French translation only emerged after Resolution 242 had been adopted when the French delegate announced it. But in Mazzawi's quote "I told the Israelis they had better accept it, because if they didn't they could be left with something worse, and with our version there would be something to argue about later."[10] This is absolutely absurd. Accredited (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to make disruptive edits because you personally find a statement from a verifiable WP:RS source "absurd". The observation that Brown and Caradon made inconclusive statements that contradicted what they actually said during the United Nations debates is a NOTABLE fact according to several sources that are already cited in the article. It is quite obvious by now that you are engaging in disruptive edits on the basis of your own WP:OR thesis, so I'm going to move this discussion to WP:AE if you persist in deleting the Brown quote.

Glenn Perry and Arthur Lall both wrote that the issue of the authenticity of the French version arose before the vote, and that the French delegation had ALWAYS stressed that point. Caradon prearranged for the French representative to announce that the French version was equally authentic and that it required withdrawal from all the territories. The statement of Mr. BERARD (France) is readily available online at paragraph 111 of the 1382nd session he said:

We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to 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".

Perry and Lall say that Caradon also arranged for the representative of India to quote Brown's policy statements which said Israel could not expand its borders and that it must withdraw. Caradon said Great Britain stood by those statements. Perry and Lall say all of that was done to prevent a Soviet veto. I've already explained that I intend to include that information in the article. harlan (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is quite irrational to admit that "It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included." but maintain that "The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war."

As to the various policy statements, they are irrelevant to Resolution 242 since "each delegation rightly speaks only for itself." Accredited (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that is irrelevant is your unpublished thesis. If you don't have anything to discuss here that can be sourced to a verifiable WP:RS publication, then you are wasting everyone's time and abusing the talk page. harlan (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate my call that you substantiate or retract your allegations. Accredited (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is one of many examples [9] where you deleted Foreign Secretary Brown's quote. You also replaced it with a private unsourced WP:OR analysis and editorial which claimed Secretary Rusk's statement that the US never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war, and that there were no commitments made by the United States to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War was "a far outcry from Secretary Rusk's Telegram dated March 2, 1968 to the U.S. Interests Section of the Spanish Embassy in Cairo summarizing Eugene Rostow’s conversation with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin".

The telegram doesn't contain any statement or comments made by Rusk. The FRUS says it was Eugene Rostow that approved the telegram, and the comments you quoted are Eugene Rostow's, not Rusk's. The telegram was cited in the footnote to a US policy document which said the US was willing to demand that Israel withdraw to the 4 June 1967 borders. Rostow's comments do reflect the official US policy that Israel cannot retain territory without the agreement of the Arabs. His other remarks to Dobrynin that "he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated." or that agreement must precede withdrawal is answered conclusively by the text of the FRUS policy document that mentions the telegram and by other reliable sources including, Sidney Freifeld [10], David Korn [11], and President Johnson himself. The President suggested the use of US peacekeeping forces in his original five point policy address at the State Department's Foreign Policy Conference for Educators, on June 19, 1967 [12]

Here are some examples where you deleted a citation to the interview where Caradon said the resolution could rectify the so-called bad line by mutual exchanges of small parcels of territory and that recognized borders had nothing to do with geography. [13] [14] Here is an example where you deleted three references, including a citation to a published analysis of his comments by a verifiable WP:RS secondary source.[15] You keep making the bizarre statement that "Caradon speaks for himself". WP:PSTS policy says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

Here is where you deleted Donald Neff's observation that the resolution had barely been passed before Israel began challenging its generally accepted meaning in quite extraordinary terms and McHugo's observation about the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs' use of words taken out of context in order to support a position which would appear to give Israel a right to acquire parts of the occupied territories.[16]

The use of quotes from President Johnson and others with the clauses about withdrawal removed has already been identified as a significant propaganda problem in the misuse of quotes subsection above. That was very obviously done with the intention of making it appear that the necessity of not "returning to pre-June 5 positions" meant there would be territorial changes. Secretary Rusk and Caradon both explained that support for recognized borders did not mean support for territorial changes. The telegram to Belgrade which indicates "the difference between pre-June 5 positions and secure national boundaries was an important difference." does not mention any territorial changes or alter the US policy which Secretary Rusk explained to the Yugoslav Foreign Minister: "The US had no problem with frontiers as they existed before the outbreak of hostilities." harlan (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted Mazzawi's Brown quote which is clearly unreliable. It is further contradicted by Brown's interview as Foreign Secretary and the quote from "In My Way, George Brown Memoirs" that appears in the article.

"Caradon speaks for himself" means that you should actually quote his interview in context. He neither said that "recognized borders" had nothing to do with geography nor did he utter the words "mutual exchanges of small parcels of territory." Accredited (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown's statements on British policy were endorsed by Caradon and quoted verbatim at the 1381st meeting of the Security Council, and quoted by other members of the Security Council during the 1382nd meeting. If you think you can keep selectively quoting from the minutes of the Security Council sessions while tendentiously deleting the relevant British policy statements about the withdrawal clause you are sadly mistaken. The matter will be addressed for dispute resolution (sooner rather than later).

The talk page is not the forum for your rants about the reliability of quotes. I did the footwork and looked up the evidence that established CAMERA, JCPA, and MFA were misusing the original sources and failing to include remarks about the requirement for Israel to withdraw. You haven't done that, and haven't discussed whether or not Musa E.Mazzawi, Ph.D., professor of international law at the Polytechnic of Central London (now the University of Westminster), and Dean of the law faculty there or Garnet Publishing & Ithaca Press are reliable published sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The same thing goes for Michael Lynk, BA (Hons.) Dalhousie 1974, LLB (Dalhousie) 1981, LLM (Queen's), Associate Dean at Western Law, the University of Western Ontario and the Journal of Palestine Studies or SSRN. You certainly aren't going to continue to edit war on the basis of your own personal say so without the issue of bad faith and tendentious editing being raised at WP:AE.

Wikipedia policy is that any verifiable and reliable WP:RS secondary source that has published a synthesis or analysis of Caradon's remarks from the GWU Symposium on Resolution 242 and the "Interview with Caradon" from the Journal of Palestine Studies" meets the burden of proof for inclusion in this article. I have corrected the incomplete quotes from CAMERA, JCPA, and MFA, but I have not deleted them. The interviewer did ask Caradon if he was suggesting that resolution 242 could be implemented through the mutual exchange of small parcels of territory, and Caradon answered in the affirmative:

"Q. But how would one change the previous border without the acquisition of territory by war? Are you suggesting mutual concessions, that is, that both Israel and the Arabs would rationalize the border by yielding up small parcels of territory? A. Yes, I'm suggesting that.

Caradon also said:

"therefore there must be a withdrawal to - let's read the words carefully - "secure and recognized boundaries." They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it's only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind that security doesn't come from arms, it doesn't come from territory, it doesn't come from geography, it doesn't come from one side dominating the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding."

Golda Meir said the same thing. She said that as she saw it, there was no such thing as a secure boundary - only security. US National Archives, box 2071, 11 January 1971: cable from US Ambassador Yost, USUN to the Secretary of State. Ynet reported the same thing recently:

"As long as the IDF’s doomsday scenarios had to do with Iraqi tanks rushing in our direction through Jordan, the argument of holding on to certain territory in order to curb an invasion carried some weight. Yet the First Gulf War pushed this argument off the agenda, replacing it with the question of missiles. It became unclear why we need the settlement enterprise to defend ourselves against missiles, as the land cannot stop the Scuds."

The statements made by Brown and Caradon are relevant, notable, easily verifiable, and meet the burden of proof for inclusion. harlan (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The British policy statements have no connection to the withdrawal to secure boundaries clause of Resolution 242. As Lord Caradon made it clear before the vote that this "is not a British text" and that "each delegation rightly speaks only for itself."

As to Mazzawi's Brown quote which admits that "It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included." But maintains that "The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war", is clearly inconsistent and unsuitable.

It is further contradicted by the quote from "In My Way, George Brown Memoirs" that appears in the article:

[Resolution 242] does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.

Furthermore, in his interview as British Foreign Secretary George Brown had said:

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.

As to the Caradon quote, although the article already quotes him at least eight times, I have no objection to add another quote of his actual words in context as appropriate. Accredited (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, Pre-arrangement for statement of Indian Delegate

Regarding this revert, so as to not mis-characterize the reasons for it, could you please offer a quick summary? Unomi (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Most articles about UN resolutions are little more than stubs. When I first noticed this article, it was literally a WP:COATRACK quote farm consisting of material from the CAMERA and MFA websites. They are certainly reliable sources for their own opinions, but as Secretary Rusk noted, "we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided." CAMERA and the MFA are not reliable sources for information on US or UK policy regarding resolution 242.

I've supplied the statements of three primary sources: UK Foreign Minister - George Brown, the General Legal Counsel of the Indian delegation - Arthur Lall ("the brains behind the delegation"[17]), and the UK representative to the UN - Lord Caradon. I've also supplied analysis of those statements from secondary sources which include Glenn Perry, Musa Mazzawi, Michael Lynk, Donald Neff, John McHugo, and others. NMMNG and Accredited simply ignore the WP:ARBPIA reminder that editors must utilize reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions. They do not provide any analysis from published sources regarding this material at all.

This article has a subsection devoted to the legitimacy of the French version. At a minimum, Brown's comments in that regard are obviously relevant. There are several published accounts which say Lord Caradon carried on last-minute negotiations with the French, Indian, Arab, and other representatives to prevent the UK draft resolution from being vetoed. Brown confirmed those accounts in an interview he gave to the London monthly magazine, The Middle East. Brown says the French version is equally legitimate and that it requires withdrawal from the territories seized during the war. He says the Israelis knew this.

We know that prior to the vote, the Indian delegate read George Brown's statements regarding British policy. Brown said Israel could not use war to enlarge its borders, and that Israel had to withdraw (para 50-51). Caradon replied that the UK stood by those policies and declarations(para 57). Every attempt to add that material to the Context section of this article has resulted in a WP:TEDIOUS revert. The French delegate quoted George Brown's policy statement on Jerusalem. He also explained that the French version called for withdrawal from the occupied territories, and that the French version was equally authentic with the English (paras 111-112). [18] None of the other delegates disagreed.

Mazzawi cited two portions of the interview in the London monthly magazine, The Middle East. His comments and the second portion read: "George Brown then gives an interesting insight into the political manoeuvring that went on in the lobbies of the United Nations about Resolution 242. He is reported by the same source to have said this":

We arranged that the Indian delegate, who was leading the non-aligned block with their own version, should make a statement declaring that the reference to territories should mean all territories. We arranged with them beforehand that we would not respond to the statement and therefore this interpretation would remain on the record. And the Indian delegate did, obligingly and in cohorts with the United Kingdom delegate, make that statement as we have seen.[19]

Arthur Lall wrote a similar account:

"A crucial meeting took place at 3 p.m. [on November 22] between the Arabs and Caradon. He was able to reassure them that their position on the question of withdrawal remained unprejudiced. Further negotiations followed between Parthasarathi [the Indian representative} and Caradon which involved also the French and Nigerian delegates. As a result of these late exchanges Caradon agreed to delete from his proposed response to the Indian delegate's projected statement the words "But the Indian interpretation is not binding on the Council." On this basis Parthasarathi decided to vote for the resolution and so informed the Soviet Union." -- See Arthur Lall, The United Nations and the Middle East Crisis, 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), pp. 260-261

All of this is discussed at length by Perry, Lynk, Neff, McHugo, et al. harlan (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer clearly appears above. Repetition unnecessary. Accredited (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to restate your reasons for arguing against the addition of content then you run the risk of having them misinterpreted. From what I can see above you seem to largely base your resistance to the inclusion on the grounds that the material is inconsistent with what is presented in other sources. When such an event happens, which is quite often, the proper thing to do is represent all sides in a neutral tone according to weight and presumptions of reliability. As I read it, Harlan has offered a bevy of scholarly and official sources which confirm that his position is supported by the literature available. If I missed additional arguments that you have forwarded please do have the courtesy to restate them below. Best, un☯mi 11:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this article? Do you think it's in good condition? Do you think it needs more quotes? Have you read the discussions in the archives? Or did you just knee jerkingly restore something you think someone on "your" side of the IP conflict wanted in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article, and I agree that it could use some general cleanup, lets first get it balanced yet unpolished and then we can whittle down after that. We are unlikely to be able to agree on big changes just yet, lets focus on small collaborative gains first. un☯mi 11:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do that for months. I suggest you read the archives.

Do you feel the issue of why the word "the" isn't in the text is not covered sufficiently in the article? I mean, there are only about 10 paragraphs talking about it, is that not enough? Is it not balanced? Is one POV not represented? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I find that the article is somewhat unbalanced, yes, my position as a person who is not intimate with the sources gives me the impression that instead of a balance within sections, there is a tendency to seek a balance between sections. As an example the interpretations section and those following it seem to present what I assume to be the Israeli pov quite convincingly. I must again reaffirm that I agree that we need to tighten the article up and hopefully end up with a version that we all can agree to defend later, as it were. I find that quotes are often used due to the difficulty of agreeing on mutually acceptable summaries, so defensible quotes are used in lieu of that, hopefully we can work together to overcome that necessity. un☯mi 12:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You feel it is unbalanced? How's that? There are practically the same amount of paragraphs/quotes/piles of repetition for both POVs. I invite you to show me numbers that prove otherwise.

We should be removing some of this repetition rather than adding to it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Accredited previously offered a synthetic argument that a great statesman would not make inconclusive or contradictory statements. That is nothing more than your unpublished personal opinion. In fact, Glenn Perry, John Norton Moore, and Prosper Weil (in Moore) went out of their way to document inconclusive and apparently contradictory statements made by Caradon and Brown after the fact. Perry says

Subsequent statements by particular statesmen who were involved in the drafting and passage of the resolution (e.g. George Brown and Lord Caradon) are not conclusive, particularly when they contradict what they said during the UN debates in 1967. For several statements in this category, see Moore, op.cit., II, pp. 1024-1144 and Weil, in Ibid., p. 321."

You have repeatedly deleted secondary analysis by Lynk regarding the "Interview with Lord Caradon", in order to insert an unrelated quote that doesn't come from the same interview and which isn't supported by any published analysis. You are violating a very basic requirement that any analysis come from published sources. WP:ARBPIA simply reaffirmed that editors must utilize reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions.

Arthur Lall described the position of Lord Caradon during the deliberations and negotiations as one of "resolute adherence" to the principle of "complete withdrawal by Israel," along with that of the right of all states to exist. See Arthur Lall, The United Nations and the Middle East Crisis, 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), page 226.

Glenn Perry says

He [Caradon] also said that "we stand by our votes and we stand by our declarations," a matter of some significance, since this was in response to the Indian delegate's statement that quoted George Brown, in the earlier General Assembly debates, as having strongly supported the principle of full withdrawal. Caradon had already stated, following the introduction of the British draft, that the goals of withdrawal and secure borders were not contradictory, that the draft was clear, that non-extension of borders by war meant full withdrawal, and that the British draft was based "on principles which the Latin American delegates had declared". Thus in a slightly roundabout, but unmistakable way, the author of the resolution had at least twice endorsed the "full withdrawal" interpretation. See Security Council Resolution 242: The Withdrawal Clause, page 429

You are welcome to include opposing published views, but the time has come to stop making disruptive edits to this article. harlan (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The time has come to stop trying to flood this and other articles with ever more quotes that you think will overwhelm the reader into seeing things the way you personally do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a somewhat unhelpful attitude in the face of the number and and quality of sources which seem to support Harlans position. I think we should add the proposed edit at this time, and then turn our collective attention to how we can distill the varying positions as indicated by quality sources to succinct prose. un☯mi 12:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG you and Steve flooded the talk page and the article with WP:OR nonsense and wikilawyering. The only place I'm going to have another long discussion with you is at AN/I or WP:AE. You have assisted Attributed in adding material that obfuscates US policy statements. You have also deleted summaries of secondary sources on non-recognition, the inadmissibility principle, and etc. The notion that you have been trying to help, while tag-teaming multiple articles with topic banned users including Drork, LoveroftheRussianQueen, Stellarkid, & etc is nonsense. harlan (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you just accuse me of "flooding" the talkpage? That's too funny. I'd be surprised if I've used 10% as many words as you have.

As I told you many times before, report me wherever you like. I'm completely open to my behavior being scrutinized. Are you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, lets get back to the issue, can we go ahead and add the quote then start slimming from the top? un☯mi 12:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this issue is already covered sufficiently and all POVs are represented. We should cut this down not add more repetition. Please see my reply to you above. I know, it's hard to follow the discussion when harlan keeps posting walls of text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Where else in the article does it say that George Brown said the French version is equally authentic? Where else in the article does it say that Israel knew about that? Why are Brown's quotes, that were deliberately read aloud by secret agreement, not included anywhere in the article? There isn't a hint anywhere in the article that Brown said the Indian and UK representative were working in cooperation to get his policy statement on full withdrawal read into the record and reaffirmed by Caradon. harlan (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a large paragraph with Perry saying the French version is equally authentic. Then Rosenne saying it isn't. Then we have CAMERA saying only the English is binding after which the French SC rep saying they're both binding. If we ignore the fact we start with McHugo saying that it doesn't matter if there's a definite article or not, that seems pretty balanced. Do we need 3 more people saying the same thing? That's like 8 paragraphs (with 2 large quotes) dedicated to this one technical issue. Seems like more than enough WEIGHT-wise and well within NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Get real. NPOV requires that all of the significant published views get included and fairly represented.

• The fact that both the US Secretary of State and UK Foreign Secretary say the French version of the withdrawal clause was equally authentic, and that Brown said the government of Israel knew about that, is much more important than the current contents of the paragraph in the English vs French subsection. Neither CAMERA nor Rosenne can veto a negotiated agreement between the members of the Security Council regarding the meaning of the withdrawal clause.
• The details of the meeting with Caradon and the representatives of France, India, the Arab states, and etc., which is independently attested by both Brown and Lall, is more important than the current contents of the Context, English vs French, Interpretations, and FRUS subsections. The study done for President Carter and the CRS Study from the State Department's Foreign Press Corps website confirm Rusks account regarding US policy. harlan (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody should have to argue with you over the inclusion of relevant sourced material in the first place, so drop the nonsense about talk page usage. Tell us how many times you deleted the material on the statehood of the Palestine mandate without ever bothering to read the State Department Digest citations. In 1950 a jerk sued Secretary of State Dulles claiming that Palestine was not a state in order to retain his US citizenship. The government argued the executive branch had recognized Palestine as a separate foreign state in 1932 and won the case. See Kletter v Dulles, United States District Court, District of Colombia - in Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254.[20] You intentionally engaged in editorial conflict and WP:TEDIOUS deletions across multiple articles for weeks on that one. Your behavior here is just another example. harlan (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If this article is going to have subsections on context and the authenticity of the French version, then Lall's account and Brown's remarks in the London magazine interview need to be mentioned along with the analysis by Perry & etc. harlan (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is hard to argue that the matter of the relative authenticity is one which doesn't deserve full treatment from available sources, it seems like an issue that is brought up repeatedly and that all the sides of the dispute spend quite a bit of time presenting their interpretations of, I wouldn't find it inappropriate to say that it is one of the major focal points of contemporary discussion regarding 242. Length is not an issue, and the 'right balance' is, by wikipedia policy, that which represents the weight of reliable sources. un☯mi 16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Relative authenticity is hardly one of the major focal points. On what basis do you make this statement? Surely not based on the fact that harlan keeps adding more and more quotes I hope. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, I've supplied several reliable sources which say that the other UN delegations only agreed to vote in favor of the UK draft resolution after they struck a deal to quote George Brown's policy statements regarding Israeli withdrawal into the record prior to the vote, and for Lord Caradon to reaffirm those policy statements.

Accredited has carried on an edit war to prevent the inclusion of those all-important quotes in the so-called "Context" subsection.[21] [22] [23]

In the section above, Accredited claimed "Mazzawi's text is irrational and clearly unreliable". So, I took the matter to WP:RSN. I mentioned that fact here when I restored the quote. You reverted, but remained MIA throughout the WP:RSN discussion.[24]

The quotes I've added are all relevant content. This article discusses the dispute over the authenticity of the French version and casts doubt on the meaning of the withdrawal clause. Despite your claim that all of these viewpoints are already reflected in the article, they certainly are NOT. The article does not reflect the fact that the British Foreign Minister (a) told the General Assembly emergency session that Israel could not use the war to enlarge its borders and that Israel must withdraw; (b) that he considered the French version equally authentic; (c) that he said he discussed the implications of the French version with the government of Israel; (d) that Brown and Lall said the Indian and UK representatives agreed to cooperate in order to read Brown's statements on British policy regarding Israeli withdrawal into the record prior to the vote. harlan (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the RSN discussion mainly because I wasn't aware of it on since you neglected to mention it here.

The main problems with the way you tried to add this information into the article are:

• You tend to use huge quotes for every single bit of information you try to add to the article, which makes it even harder to read than it is now, not to mention causes UNDUE problems. If someone who doesn't know much about this resolution (like Unomi) reads the article and thinks that the English vs French versions is one of the major focal points, we have a serious problem.
• You add quotes without explaining their relevance (WP:QUOTEFARM).
• I don't think we need to note what every single delegate had read into the protocol (WP:N, WP:UNDUE).
• The issues you raise above are reflected in the article POV-wise. If it's so important to you to note that Brown also thought the French was equally authentic, you could add a few words noting the fact after the full paragraph of Perry explaining why he thought so, for example. But you want to add a whole new couple of paragraphs just say the same thing again. I'm sure you understand why this is problematic. Same goes for the inadmissibility principle, or any of the other issues you keep trying to add walls of text about, in a transparent attempt to lead the reader to conclusions you want them to reach. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you and Accredited are gaming the system. The article makes the reader wade through comparisons of missing definite articles in the sentence "Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park." and hypothetical discussions about the rules of law in Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, while you guys are deleting the third-party verifiable published words of the Foreign Minister responsible for authoring the resolution. He said the French version is equally authentic, that it implied withdrawal from all the territories, and that the Israelis knew that, because he discussed it with them. He even says he told them that they could do worse, and that the language used would give them something to argue about later on. Glenn Perry, Caradon, Rusk, et al do not report those details about the conversations with the Israelis. harlan (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all I agree there's a lot of crap in this article. I've been trying to collaboratively fix this for months. You have not been very helpful in that regard. Second, I told you already that I don't object to adding a few words about what Brown to the section that already discusses this. Alternatively, you can cut down the Perry paragraph and make Brown the main one. There's no need for two large paragraphs saying basically the same thing. Also, per QUOTEFARM it would be better if you paraphrased what the book you're using says about this rather than adding a quote without explaining its significance. Lastly, how am I gaming the system? Why not take it to AE? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Israeli conditional acceptance of 242

The article currently contains a discussion of Syria's evolving attitude towards 242 and eventual acceptance. A hidden comment in the text suggests this should be done also for Israel, which I agree with. But the earliest reference that follows of Israel's attitude towards it isn't until a year later! Abba Eban was at the UN during deliberations and participated in those proceedings, although he had no vote. He made his government's position perfectly clear from the beginning. The delegate from India stated:

Members of the Council will recall that during the fifth emergency special session an overwhelming majority of Member States of the United Nations, whether they voted for the Latin American draft resolution 2/ or the non-aligned, Afro-Asian draft resolution, had reaffirmed the principle of non-acquisition of territory by military conquest and had supported the call for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces to the positions they held prior to the outbreak of the recent conflict on 5 June 1967. On this point there was universal agreement among the membership of the United Nations.... The principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by force is absolutely fundamental to our approach and we cannot accept or acquiesce in any decision that leaves out territories occupied by military conquest from the provision of withdrawal.... 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. In other words, 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", contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict. Of course, mutual territorial adjustments are not ruled out, as indeed they are not in the three-Power draft resolution co-sponsored by India. This is our clear understanding of the United Kingdom draft resolution.

Abba Eban responded with his own interpretation:

I reiterate that in negotiations with our neighbors we shall present a concrete vision of peace. Before saying what that vision is, I should like to make one comment on the course of this debate with special reference to the remarks of the Indian representative. The establishment of a peace settlement, including secure and recognized boundaries, is quite different from what he had been proposing, namely, withdrawal, without final peace, to demarcation lines. The representative of India has now sought to interpret the resolution in the image of his own wishes. For us, the resolution says what it says. It does not say that which it has specifically and consciously avoided saying.

In other words, while members of the Security Council explicitly stated that the draft resolution called on Israel to fully withdraw from the occupied territory, Eban stated that his government would interpret it to mean that withdraw would only occur subsequent to a final border settlement. Numerous other voting delegates observed that this unilateral Israeli interpretation was just that, and that the intent of the Security Council was that Israel should withdraw unconditionally, in accordance with the inadmissibility principle.

I therefore propose the following to be added to the paragraph on the Israeli acceptance of 242:

The Israeli representative to the U.N. Abba Eban expressed approval of the resolution prior to the vote, but conditioned his acceptance upon the unilateral Israeli interpretation that it meant final borders must be established and recognized before withdrawal would take place, an interpretation explicitly rejected by members of the Security Council.[25] JRHammond (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have several problems with the above.

• I don't see Eban "conditioning his acceptance".
• The Indian delegates view are his views, not the view of the Security Council.
• The "unilateral Israeli interpretation" is not supported by either quote. At most you can say that the Israeli delegate and Indian delegate didn't see eye to eye.

So to sum up, this is SYNTH and OR. It would perhaps be correct to say that Eban envisioned a final peace treaty (implying border modifications of unknown proportions) prior to Israeli withdraw, but that's all this quote supports. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The view of the UNSC is the collective view of its members, of which India was one. You apparently want me to paste more quotes here from the source. Very well:

The attitude of the British Government is clear. We want the area to be at peace. We recognize that, peace demands the greatest measure of justice in its political arrangements. And on this foundation the progress of its peoples, especially of those whose need is greatest, must be based. I should like, if I may, to set out certain principles which I believe should guide us in striving collectively for a lasting settlement. Clearly, such principles must derive from the United Nations Charter. Article 2 of the Charter provides that: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State ...'. Here the words "territorial integrity" have a direct bearing on the question of withdrawal, on which much has been said in previous speeches. I see no two ways about this; and I can state our position very clearly. In my view, it follows from the words in the Charter that war should not lead to territorial aggrandizement. -- George Brown, British Foreign Secretary, June 21, 1967[26]

I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw. -- George Brown, September 26, 1967[27]

As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both I withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear. -- Lord Caradon, British representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)[28]

If I had to sum up the policy which has been repeatedly stated by my Government, I would go back to the words used by my Foreign Secretary in the General Assembly less than a month ago. These were his words: "I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw. But equally, Israel's neighbours must recognize its right to exist, and it must enjoy security within its frontiers...." In our resolution we stated the principle of the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and in the preamble we emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". In our view, the wording of those provisions is clear. We believe that it would be a serious error to attempt at this stage to vary or add to them. -- Lord Caradon, November 20, 1967 (S/PV.1381)[29]

We know from the statements of Israel statesmen, and in particular from that made yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel and just published in The New York Times, that Israel makes a definite claim to keep some of the territories seized from the Arab States. Consequently, the United States draft leaves open the possibility that Israel's forces may not be withdrawn from all the Arab territories they have seized and that part of these territories may be kept by Israel. If this is not so, we hope that the United States representative will give us a clear and unambiguous explanation to the effect that the United States supports the withdrawal of Israel's forces from all the occupied territories to the positions occupied prior to 5 June 1967. It is obvious that the provision for the withdrawal of troops must be so clearly formulated as to leave no loopholes whereby anyone can interpret it in his own way. -- Vasili Kuznetsov, Soviet representative at the UNSC, November 15, 1967 (S/PV.1377)[30]

As long as Israel troops occupy the Arab territories they have seized, as long as no stop is put to the colonialist appropriations of these lands by the aggressor, and as long as he is not forced to leave them, there will be, and there can be, no peace in the Middle East.... During Security Council debates, the Soviet delegation has repeatedly drawn attention of all members of the Security Council to the fact that the key question, the crux of the problem in the Middle East is the question of the withdrawal of Israel troops from all the Arab territories they have occupied, i.e., the question of removing the main consequence of, the Israel aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan in June 1967. The statements, of a number of Council members have shown that this view is widely shared in the Security Council. It cannot be denied that only the withdrawal of the aggressor's troops from the territories he has seized, from all the territories he has seized, can pave the way for a lasting and just peace in the Middle East. Any other assertion would be opposed to the most elementary rules governing relations among States, rules which must be respected if there is to be peace in the world. -- Vasili Kuznetsov, November 20, 1967 (S/PV.1381)[31]

However, we voted for the United Kingdom draft resolution, as interpreted by the representative of India, whose views we share. Thus, in the resolution adopted by the Security Council, the "'withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" becomes the first necessary principle for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Near East. We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"…. It has been made clear, both from representatives' statements in the Security Council today and from the many statements made during the preceding days, that this is the basic content of the resolution and that it has thus been interpreted by all the members of the Security Council. – Vasili Kuznetsov, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [32]

The aggressive Israel forces continue to occupy territories of Syria, Jordan and the United Arab Republic and territories under United Arab Republic administration. The duty of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter, as well as with the various decisions previously adopted by this Organization, is very clear, that is, to secure the withdrawal of the Israel forces from all the territories which they have occupied after 4 June 1967. Our position on this question is absolutely firm. -- Mahmoud Riad, UAR representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)[33]

Today, I wish to affirm once again our position that the first step towards peace lies in the full withdrawal of Israel forces from all territories they have occupied as a result of their aggression on 5 June. The efforts on behalf of peace which would then follow would of necessity be within the framework of this Organization and its Charter. The provisions of our Charter prohibit aggression and require all States to assume in good faith their obligations arising from the Charter as well as from international agreements and other sources of international law. – Mahmoud Riad, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [34]

The immediate stumbling block in the crisis is the withdrawal of the Israel forces from the territories of the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Syria which they occupied following the aggression of 5 June 1967. Their withdrawal is a prerequisite for any political solution to the crisis. The first task of the Council is therefore to secure, in application of the provisions of the Charter, the withdrawal of the Israel forces to the positions they held before the aggression. -- Mamadou Boubacar Kante, UNSC President and Mali representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)[35]

My delegation therefore 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, namely: first, that the withdrawal of all the armed forces of Israel from all the Arab territories occupied since 5 June cannot be made subject to any condition whatever…. For all those reasons my delegation, in voting for the draft resolution on the Middle East submitted by the United Kingdom, was anxious to record its unshakable adherence to the principles of the Charter. My country therefore continues to believe more than ever that the withdrawal of forces from territories occupied by military conquest is a prior condition for any solution of any armed crisis. – Mamadou Boubacar Kante, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [36]

The States, although adhering to the views expressed in its draft resolution of 7 November [S/8229], will vote in favour of the United Kingdom draft resolution for two principal and prevailing reasons. First, the United Kingdom resolution commands, in our opinion, a substantial con-sensus in the Council and is entirely consistent with the policy of my Government as set forth by President Johnson in his statement of 19 June and as stated by me in the several interventions I have made in the Council, I reaffirm that policy without any reservation today. -- Arthur Goldberg, U.S. representative at the UNSC, November 20, 1967 (S/PV.1381)[37]

It goes without saying that the withdrawal of the Israel aggressive forces from occupied territories is at this stage the central point of the problem and should be the focus of the attention and efforts of the international community. The advocates of the draft resolution must know this axiomatic fact very well. -- George Tomeh, Syrian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)[38]

With regard to the principles that need to be affirmed, we deem it most essential that due emphasis be put on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and hence on the imperative requirement that all Israel armed forces be withdrawn from the territories occupied as a result Of military conflict, and likewise on the need to ensure conditions of permanent peace in which all States in the area can live in security free from threats or acts of force. It follows from this that we seek the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and consider that there should be, mutual respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and, political independence of all States in the area. -- Endelkachew Makonnen, Ethiopian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)[39]

Members of the Council will recall that during the fifth emergency special session an overwhelming majority of Member States of the United Nations, whether they voted for the Latin American draft resolution 2/ or the non-aligned, Afro-Asian draft resolution, had reaffirmed the principle of non-acquisition of territory by military conquest and had supported the call for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces to the positions they held prior to the outbreak of the recent conflict on 5 June 1967. On this point there was universal agreement among the membership of the United Nations.... The principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by force is absolutely fundamental to our approach and we cannot accept or acquiesce in any decision that leaves out territories occupied by military conquest from the provision of withdrawal.... 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. In other words, 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", contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict. Of course, mutual territorial adjustments are not ruled out, as indeed they are not in the three-Power draft resolution co-sponsored by India. This is our clear understanding of the United Kingdom draft resolution. -- Mr. Parthasarathi, Indian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967[40]

We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential--the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces--the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to 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". -- Armand Berard, French representative to the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [41]

We note with satisfaction that in the resolution adopted, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, proclaimed in the preamble as a general principle, is clearly and explicitly confirmed in the first operative paragraph, which calls for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Thus it is a definite call for the withdrawal of Israel's troops from all the territories occupied since 4 June 1967. That is a practical application of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war stated in the preamble to the resolution. – Milko Tarabanov, Bulgarian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [42]

In the present crisis the basic issue which has to be remedied as an essential step towards peace is the immediate and complete withdrawal of Israel armed forces from all the territories they occupied in the recent conflict. The resolutions which were adopted both by the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the statements made on the question, have stressed this basic requirement. – Abdul Monem Rifa'I, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) [43]

Now, may it please you, I'll rephrase: The Israeli representative to the U.N. Abba Eban interpreted the resolution to mean that there could be no withdraw without a final peace settlement, and approved of it on that basis. Israel was alone in this interpretation, which was rejected by members of the Security Council. [44] JRHammond (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of text, so I must have missed the part where it says that "Israel was alone in this interpretation". Could you point me to that?

I think it would be more correct to say that Israel tied withdraw to a peace treaty (I don't think Eban specifically say which should come first) while some UNSC members rejected that and said withdraw should be unconditional. Or words to that effect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User: No More Mr Nice Guy Can you point me to where any other participating delegate expressed agreement with the the Israeli interpretation? I'll answer that. No, you cannot. Because nobody did. On the contrary, as I've just presented clear proof of, members of the Security Council explicitly rejected that interpretation. Israel did tie withdraw to a peace treaty, but that's just it -- nobody else agreed with that interpretation. Eban was quite specific that withdraw would not come without a peace agreement. Look again: The Indian delegate expressed the universal view of the Security Council that both withdrawal and secure and recognized boundaries were required, but with neither being conditional upon the other. Eban then flatly rejected the view of the Security Council and expressed Israel's interpretation -- an interpretation not shared by any other present delegate -- that there could be no withdrawal without a final peace settlement. You'll note further that the actual text of 242 places no such conditionality of either sub-clause (i) and (ii) of the first operative clause, neither one being conditioned upon the other. This is a point of fact. JRHammond (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't interpret primary sources ourselves around here. That's called WP:OR. I don't need to point you to anything, you need to point me to a secondary source supporting the language you want to put in the article.

Also, Accredited is correct below. I misspoke earlier. When I said "unconditional" I meant "complete". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think is an interpretation. I've given you the facts, which anyone here can verify for themselves. JRHammond (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how sources are used here, particularly primary sources. The source needs to explicitly support a statement you want to add to an article. See WP:NOR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand what part of my proposed edit you think is not explicitly supported from the source material. Please elucidate so I can take your concern into consideration. JRHammond (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My intent was to summarize the matter by paraphrasing. But since that's given rise to the suggestion that I've "interpreted" the source, I've crafted an alternative that says the same thing, only by instead directly quoting from the source, to resolve that objection. I prefer my previous suggestion, but offer this alternative for consideration:

During deliberations over Resolution 242 in the Security Council, delegates from member nations stated their intent in supporting the resolution. The representative from India stated, "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." Addressing the Israeli interpretation of the draft resolution, he added, "This being so, Israel cannot use the words 'secure and recognized boundaries', contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragrah 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict." This understanding was also expressed by numerous other delegates. The Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Abba Eban, rejected this stated intent of Security Council members, suggesting that there could be no withdrawal "without final peace". JRHammond (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You are interpreting and WP:SYNTHing from what Eban said. Read the quote above you helpfully posted. 1. He was talking specifically about what the Indian delegate said (not the "stated intent of Security Council members"), and 2. He was talking about withdraw without a peace treaty, not about what this withdraw would include. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no interpretation and no WP:SYNTH. There are only the facts that are right in front of you, which anyone here may verify for themselves. Addressing your fallacies: (1) The Indian delegate was not alone in his stated intent; as I've already extensively shown, this intent was shared explicitly by numerous other members of the Security Council, a clear majority. You continually ignore this fact, despite having repeatedly been shown your error. (2) The Indian delegate did NOT talk about withdraw without a peace treaty. That is demonstrably false. The Indian delegate recognized the need for both withdraw and establishment of secure and recognized boundaries (that is, a final peace settlement). The difference between this view of the majority of the Security Council and Eban's view is that Eban conditioned withdrawal upon a peace agreement. That unilateral interpretation of the resolution was explicitly rejected by the Security Council. JRHammond (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, 1. Eban was addressing his comment specifically to the Indian delegate. See where he says I should like to make one comment on the course of this debate with special reference to the remarks of the Indian representative and The representative of India has now sought to interpret the resolution in the image of his own wishes? 2. The quote from the Indian delegate in the paragraph you posted above addresses only the issue of how much of the territory Israel should withdraw from, not whether withdraw should be conditional on a peace treaty. You're SYNTHing India saying that the withdraw should be complete with Eban saying withdraw should be conditional on a peace treaty. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) I have not contested that Eban addressed specifically the Indian delegate. However, the fact remains that the view of the Indian delegate was shared by most other members of the Security Council, as I've already demonstrated. (2) I accurately quoted the Indian delegate. He stated explicitly that his government understood the resolution to call for a complete withdrawal. I accurately quoted Eban. He stated explicitly that he rejected that understanding of the Indian delegate and conditioned withdrawal upon a peace treaty. To be "SYNTH", I would have to draw conclusions that aren't stated explicitly. Yet everything in my proposed edit was stated explicitly by the individuals in question. Again, I propose:

During deliberations over Resolution 242 in the Security Council, delegates from member nations stated their intent in supporting the resolution. The representative from India stated, "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." Addressing the Israeli interpretation of the draft resolution, he added, "This being so, Israel cannot use the words 'secure and recognized boundaries', contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragrah 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict." This understanding was also expressed by numerous other delegates. The Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Abba Eban, rejected this stated intent of Security Council members, suggesting that there could be no withdrawal "without final peace".

What, specifically, do you object to about this? I still fail to see the problem. Please quote which part you object to rather than speaking in generalities, and state specifically why you object to that portion of this proposed edit. JRHammond (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I specifically object to your generalizing from something Eban said specifically to the Indian delegate to "the stated intent of Security Council members". That's SYNTH. I specifically object to your interpretation of what the "stated intent" of "Security Council members" is. That's OR. I believe I've said this several times already. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree it's SYNTH to state an observable fact. Eban directed his statement at the Indian delegate, but that does not belie the fact that the view of the Indian delegate was explicitly shared by other members of the UNSC. Nevertheless, I'm happy to rephrase, may it please you:

During deliberations over Resolution 242 in the Security Council, delegates from member nations stated their intent in supporting the resolution. The representative from India stated, "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." Addressing the Israeli interpretation of the draft resolution, he added, "This being so, Israel cannot use the words 'secure and recognized boundaries', contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragrah 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict." This understanding was also expressed by numerous other delegates. The Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Abba Eban, rejected this stated intent of the Indian delegate, suggesting that there could be no withdrawal "without final peace".

I trust that satisfies your objection. JRHammond (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are quoting the Indian delegate saying the withdraw should be complete and SYNTHing it with Eban saying the withdraw should be linked to a peace treaty.

Also you say "this understanding was also expressed by numerous other delegates". Please show us where the source explicitly says this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to state your objection, specifically, and you stated clearly that you objected that I written, "The Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Abba Eban, rejected this stated intent of the Security Council" because Eban's remarks were directed specifically at the Indian delegate's remarks. I therefore rephrased to: "The Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Abba Eban, rejected this stated intent of the Indian delegate..." That completely satisfies your stated objection. There is no "SYNTHing" here, and I've already extensively quoted from the documentary record on the fact that numerous other UNSC members shared the view of the Indian delegate that the resolution called for a complete withdrawal. This is absolutely non-controversial. JRHammond (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two main objections, as articulated above. Let me try to explain them again:

• You are talking about "stated intent" and "understanding" by UNSC members. Where does your source explicitly say these things? You can't tell us to go read all the quotes and see that the statement is true. That's WP:OR.
• You are SYNTHing two issues. The Indian delegate is talking about complete withdraw (which may or may not involve a peace treaty). Eban is talking about withdraw linked to a peace treaty (which may or may not be complete). To paraphrase what you were doing with these statements: the Indian delegate said the car is big, but Eban rejected this and said the car is red. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to understand your objection here, so let me quote from my proposal on those points. But first, a point of clarification. It was India's position that the resolution required both (a) a complete Israeli withdraw from all the occupied territories and (b) the cessation of hostilities and mutual respect and recognition of secure and recognized boundaries. Eban, on the other hand, was trying to argue that (a) was conditioned upon (b), which is to say that a final peace agreement on borders and such must be reached first, and then Israel would withdraw to those established borders. Perhaps this isn't perfectly clear to you solely on the basis of the UN record here, but it is underscored elsewhere, too, such as in the FRUS documents (e.g. "He [Eban] warned again that Soviet objective to get Israel out of occupied territory remained unchanged to which I replied that Soviets would not have gone so far with us if they had still thought they could get Israel out unconditionally...", "He recalled that outcome of UN Emergency meeting shut door on unconditional withdrawal...", etc.)[45]. In fact, Israel was pushing the U.S. on this interpretation of the draft resolution, with some success.[46] These can be added to the footnote in addition to the UN record, if you like. Now, to my wording, every instance of "stated intent" and "understanding":

(a)...delegates from member nations stated their intent in supporting the resolution...

Is it not an observable and verifiable fact, using this source, that delegates from member nations stated their intent in supporting the resolution?

(b) ...The Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Abba Eban, rejected this stated intent of the Indian delegate...

Again, are you challenging that it was the stated intent of the Indian delegate that Israel must withdraw completely? Is this not also an observable and verifiable fact?

(c) Addressing the Israeli interpretation of the draft resolution, he added, "This being so, Israel cannot use the words 'secure and recognized boundaries', contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragrah 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict." This understanding was also expressed by numerous other delegates.

Are you challenging that the understanding of the Indian delegate was also expressed by numerous other delegates? I've already extensively quoted from the record on that point. Your response seems to be, essentially, "Well, I don't want to go verify that for myself from the source". Okay, it's understandable you don't want to read the whole record to verify this. But that's precisely why I provided so many excerpts. That's also precisely why I emboldened certain portions within those excerpts.

I don't think any of these statements is in any way inaccurate. I think each one is an observable and verifiable fact. However, if you still have concerns on the wording, I'm happy to hear any alternative suggestions you may have. I'm not quite sure myself how it could be worded differently to satisfy your concerns. I've already done my best to try to rephrase it a number of times to take your concerns into consideration, but at this point I'm a bit stumped, so please tell me what you think would be a more reasonable/accurate alternative. JRHammond (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:OR. We do not interpret primary sources ourselves. You need a source that explicitly makes the claim you want to include in the article. I understand you're new here. Perhaps you should talk to an experienced editor who you trust about this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not interpreted the source. It would be helpful for me to understand your objection if you would answer my questions instead of simply repeating yourself: Is it not an observable and verifiable fact, using this source, that delegates from member nations stated their intent in supporting the resolution? Again, are you challenging that it was the stated intent of the Indian delegate that Israel must withdraw completely? Is this not also an observable and verifiable fact? Are you challenging that the understanding of the Indian delegate was also expressed by numerous other delegates? Please answer the questions. JRHammond (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, again, I'm open to suggestions if you think there's a problem with the wording and would like to propose an alternative. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am challenging your interpretation of a primary source. Have you read WP:OR? We can't continue this conversation until you do. I'll repeat my suggestion that you discuss this with an experienced editor whom you trust. Maybe harlan?

I am not interpreting the source. I am familiar with WP:OR. Now, if you would please answer my own questions. I would observe that to refuse to answer good faith questions of other editors is Tendentious Editing. Again, my questions: Is it not an observable and verifiable fact, using this source, that delegates from member nations stated their intent in supporting the resolution? Again, are you challenging that it was the stated intent of the Indian delegate that Israel must withdraw completely? Is this not also an observable and verifiable fact? Are you challenging that the understanding of the Indian delegate was also expressed by numerous other delegates? JRHammond (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it pretty amusing that you would accuse me of TE. Anyhow, it's an observable fact that your source makes no generalizations about what the "intent" of "numerous" delegates or their countries was. To reach those conclusions you must interpret the source. That's OR. I don't know how to say this in a simpler way. I assume the reason you're insisting on using this primary source is that you can't find a secondary source making the same argument you are. That should also be a hint you're engaging in OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

??? It's an observable fact, if you look to the source, that numerous delegates stated their governments' intent in supporting the resolution. How would you prefer to say it? Numerous delegates stated their governments' positions? Their governments' interpretations? Views? What noun would you prefer? As I've said repeatedly, I'm open to suggestions. JRHammond (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, the source has to explicitly say it. Also, I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. We know how they voted, so their intent to support the resolution seems moot. What are you trying to say here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. -- WP:OR. Every source you have cited is a primary source (UN records), no source you have cited is a secondary source. Do you have any secondary sources to support your conclusion? --WGFinley (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

MrNicGuy, kindly answer this one simple question: Did or did not numerous delegates state their governments' positions on the resolution? Yes, they did, or No, they didn't, please. Wgfinley, I didn't draw any conclusions, so WP:OR doesn't apply. I only stated observable and verifiable facts. You can go to the source and see for yourself that numerous delegates stated their governments' positions on the resolutions. JRHammond (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'll once again rephrase. Proposed:

During deliberations over Resolution 242 in the Security Council, delegates from member nations expressed their governments' understandings of the resolution.[47][48][49][50] The representative from India stated, "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." Addressing the Israeli position on the draft resolution, he added, "This being so, Israel cannot use the words 'secure and recognized boundaries', contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict." Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war. The Israelis had argued that resolution did not call for unconditional withdrawal,[51][52] and the Israeli ambassador to the U.N. responded to the Indian delegate by saying, "The establishment of a peace settlement, including secure and recognized boundaries, is quite different from what he had been proposing, namely, withdrawal, without final peace, to demarcation lines."[53]

I trust that satisfies your objection. JRHammond (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break, Israel's interpretation of the inadmissibility clause

Quite the contrary, not a single UNSC delegate said that the resolution calls for an unconditional withdrawal. Accredited (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in sophistry. If you're going to argue that any members of the Security Council placed any conditions upon withdrawal, you'll have to demonstrate that. You'll find you won't be able to support that assertion from the documentary record. Members of the Security Council stated clearly their intent that Israel withdraw, and they placed no conditions upon that. Anyone here can examine the record and verify that for themselves. The facts are as I've stated them, and anyone can verify them. JRHammond (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already cites several journal articles which explain Israel's interpretation and say that it is untenable.

The US announced that the policies contained in President Johnson's address at the State Department's Foreign Policy Conference for Educators, June 19, 1967 would have to be included in any Security Council resolution in order to be acceptable to the US. Johnson mentioned replacing the Israeli armed forces with an international peace keeping force. The President only obtained Jordan's assent after he assured King Hussein that Israeli forces would be withdrawn within six months. See State Department Study of the Meaning of Resolution 242, by Nina J. Noring of the Office of the Historian, and Walter B. Smith II, Director of the Office of Israeli and Arab-Israeli Affairs, Department of State, The Withdrawal Clause in UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, Its Legislative History and the Attitudes of the United States and Israel since 1967, February 4, 1978.

Eban himself interpreted the inadmissibility clause to be a call for unconditional withdrawal, and said that if it was included it would lead to conflict between Israel and the US. [54]

Goldberg subsequently circulated framework drafts for the use of the other members with the inadmissibility clause removed. [55] Goldberg told Caradon that he removed the inadmissibility clause because "Every effort to produce agreement in [the] past had floundered over [the] relationship between [the] wording of withdrawal and of non-belligerence." Articles 7 and 8 of the Fourth Geneva Convention [56] and Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [57] reflect customary international law that precludes the conclusion of any final settlement negotiated during a belligerent occupation.

Within a matter of days, all of the proposed drafts contained the restored clause, and Goldberg was instructed to make a statement to the Security Council on behalf of the US government that the text of the resolution would not prejudice the position of those directly concerned. See the verbatim minutes of the Security Council, para 190, page 22: [58] and Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 521, para 5 & 6 [59]

The Rusk quote and the George Brown quote you keep deleting both describe the conflict between Israel and the members of the Security Council regarding the requirement that it withdraw. That conflict has been a matter of public record since the publication of the FRUS in 2000. Here is a record of a meeting between the US and Israel that illustrates the conflict. [60].

FYI, in the Lotus case, the Permanent Court of International Justice decided, "the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that - failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary - it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State." See Case of the S.S. "Lotus" (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Series A, No. 10, at p. 18 (1927) [61] The ICJ noted that the threat or use of force is prohibited by customary international law, the UN Charter, and the preamble of Security Council Resolution 242. The OAS Charter goes so far as to prohibit the occupation of the territory of a state for any reason. That is why the Latin American draft resolutions called for unconditional withdrawal.

The Legal Counsel to the Canadian UN delegation in 1967 explained that Israel is not vested by Resolution 242 with the authority to administer the occupied territories until the Arab states of the region make a just and lasting peace.[62] Canada says it does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power,

[63] harlan (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolution 242 speaks for itself. It calls for the establishment of peace, requires termination of all claims and agreement on secure boundaries. Accredited (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually reliable secondary sources speak for themselves too. Bailey, Lall, and others say that Eban interpreted the inadmissibility clause to be a call for unconditional withdrawal that would lead to conflict between Israel and the US. The FRUS is full of exchanges with Israel that it characterizes as ugly threats (e.g.[64]) about the impending collision between the US and Israel if the US proceeded with the US–USSR draft, containing the inadmissibility language. Israel expressed the view that it had the right to hold on to the territory conquered by war where it is necessary to do so to defend themselves against further aggression. The US replied that Israel could not expect to call the tune on the Middle East settlement as if its interests were the only factor involved in the area. In the end, the resolution did contain the inadmissibility language and it did not vest Israel with the authority to occupy the territories until the Arab states of the region make a just and lasting peace.

That is all very-well sourced information that is relevant to the article. FYI the resolution called for "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency." Many reliable published sources say that included the state of belligerent military occupation. While Wikipedia certainly allows the use of primary sources that "speak for themselves", there are primary sources (e.g. Rusk and Brown), and secondary sources (Bailey) who say the Israelis knew all along that inclusion of the inadmissibility clause required a complete withdrawal and that it would (and did) lead to conflict between Israel and the members of the Security Council. harlan (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That was a completely different draft. In Resolution 242, the second part of that same sentence in the preamble explicitly recognizes the need of existing states to live in security. Furthermore, it has an operative provision for "secure and recognized boundaries" while it mentions withdrawal "from territories" rather than "from the territories" or "from all territories." Accredited (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was not completely different. The US-USSR UNGA draft resolution(s) served as the basis for their later UNSC draft resolutions. As for the "the" argument, it's sheer nonsense: "territories", plural. With or without the "the", the meaning is the same. It's hilarious that because the word "all of the" is not included, people think it reasonable to say this should be interpreted as "some of the". How about, since "some of the" is not included, we interpret it to mean "all of the"? The logic (or lack thereof) of the Zionist argument defeats itself utterly. There is only one interpretation reconcilable with the inadmissibility principle, and it's the interpretation of the Security Council itself (see above). JRHammond (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you spare us your WP:SOAPBOXing? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you actually substantively address what I said (or what Harlan said, for that matter), rather than engaging in ad hominem argumenation. JRHammond (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Where's the ad hominem? You supplied us with your personal opinion about the resolution. That's SOAPBOXing (not to mention irrelevant to the discussion). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You responded to my argument by appealing to alleged feelings or prejudices on my part rather than substantively addressing the facts and logic of that argument. That is the definition of "ad hominem" argumentation. If you disagree with what I've said, kindly point out where I made any error in fact or logic. Kindly refrain from using the ad homimen fallacy in lieu of doing so. JRHammond (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only am I not required to, I'm expected not to address your personal opinions. This is not a forum for exchange of opinions of the participants. It's not ad hominem to point you to the policy you're violating when posting your personal opinions. Reading at the discussion at AE, apparently I'm not the first person trying to explain this to you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested you should not address my personal opinions. I simply observed that if you are going to contend an argument I've made that you do it on the basis of pointing out any error in fact or logic on my part, rather than appealing to characterizations of my person. This is not an unreasonable request. What is unreasonable is to employ such ad hominem arguments, rather than addressing my own argument on the basis of the facts and logic I've presented. So, again, if you disagree, I welcome you to state your reasons -- but kindly do so on the basis of any error you think I've made in fact or logic. I think you'll find that I made no error either in fact or in logic, so my argument stands. JRHammond (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out you are violating wikipedia policy or guidelines is not a characterization of your person and not an ad hominem. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM and I'm not going to have a discussion with you about your personal opinions and why they are wrong. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when is stating facts and drawing logical conclusions a violation of Wikipedia policy? Like I said, if you insist I am "wrong", please demonstrate where I've made any error in fact or logic. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)