Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Refugees

I have come across this US Congress resolution, which has some information regarding the refugee issue. To save us one of the usual edit wars, I'd like to try and discuss it here before adding it to the article.
I'd like to add the quote from Arthur Goldberg - "The resolution addresses the objective of ‘achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.’ This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees", and perhaps something about the USSR delegation trying to add language to specifically limit the resolution to Palestinian refugees, and failing.

Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You might as well add President Clinton's statement upon the conclusion of Camp David II:

"How would a new Palestinian state be defined, what would its borders be? What should be done about refugees from 1948, not just Palestinian refugees but Jewish refugees, as well. And you might be interested in knowing that the Palestinians felt that their families should be entitled to compensation as well." Accredited (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it strictly related to 242. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For what purpose and in what context of the article would you like to include the quote? JRHammond (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The context is the part of the resolution that talks about a just settlement for the refugee problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is only a sense of Congress resolution with no legal force. It was adopted while the rules were suspended and without any recorded vote.[1] The companion Senate resolution died in committee. [2] The reference to resolution 242 is dubious:

the Soviet Union's United Nations delegation attempt to restrict the `just settlement' mentioned in Resolution 242 solely to Palestinian refugees (S/8236, discussed by the Security Council at its 1382nd meeting of November 22, 1967, notably at paragraph 117, in the words of Ambassador Kouznetsov of the Soviet Union);, but this attempt failed, signifying the international community's intention of having the resolution address the rights of all Middle East refugees;

Neither of those sources actually contains any mention of refugees at all. See paragraph 117 of S/PV.1382 [3] and S/8236 [4] Goldberg claimed that the Security Council vote did not indicate unanimous support for terms that were omitted from the text of the resolution. The Jarring Mission questionnaires were based on UNGA resolution 194 of December 1948 and the Israeli replies do not mention Jewish refugees.

Israel has negotiated two final settlements with Arab states that didn't so much as touch the issue of Jewish refugees with a barge pole. The Jewish Daily Forward said the Congressional move was an apparent bid to neutralize the contentious Palestinian refugee issue in anticipation of the Annapolis Middle East peace talks. [5]

There were upwards of three quarters of a million Palestinian refugees in 1949. The FRUS reports that during the Lausanne Conference the Israeli delegation reply to the Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) stressed that any repatriation in Israel would take place subject to financial assistance furnished by the international community and that such assistance would be extended to resettlement of Jewish refugees from the Arab controlled areas Palestine. The Israeli delegation did not raise the subject of refugees from any of the four Arab states that participated in the conference. [6] The Israeli High Court of Justice has already acted to restore properties to the Jewish owners in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem based upon pre-1948 title.

FYI, according to B. Scott Custer Jr., chief of the international law division of UNRWA, in 1950 17,000 internally displaced Jews coming from original mandate Palestine who resided in Israel were provided support from UNRWA. In July 1952, Israel assumed responsibility for 19,000 “refugees,” which included 3,000 Jews, and UNRWA ceased its operations inside Israel. [7]

In the following years the FRUS only mentions UNRWA and PCC plans for Palestinian refugees, e.g. [8] In 1959 Foreign Minister Golda Meir protested the involvement of the PCC and said the solution of the refugee question should be separate from the over-all Israel-Arab settlement. Meir said Israel would support a resolution that would limit the PCC's involvement. She said that Israel could not go back to “49” and mentioned offsetting Arab property claims against the loss of Jewish properties in the Arab states. She did not mention Jewish refugees, individual compensation, or the possibility of repatriating Jewish refugees to their Arab states or origin. [9]

Goldberg and Eban's post-war discussions, like those between other US, Israeli, and Security Council officials, dealt with Arab and Palestinian refugees, not Jewish refugees. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

The refugee question remained separate from the Israel-Arab Camp David Accords. Egypt was the only state in the Six Day War that had legally expelled its Jewish citizens. Israel mentioned the issue of Jewish refugees, but negotiated a final settlement that did not compensate or repatriate them. Subsequent peace conferences with Jordan and the PLO have followed the same pattern. harlan (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like they're not referring to correct document (neither has paragraph 117). You wouldn't happen to know the correct document number, would you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The link to S/PV.1383 (OR) above does have a paragraph 117 containing the remarks of Mr. Kuznetsov. Here is the text in question:, "117. Mr. KUZNETSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The Security Council has just reached a decision on the question of the situation in the Near East. The Soviet Government would have preferred the Security Council to adopt the Soviet draft resolution which is more in keeping with the need to eliminate the consequences of Israel aggression and to restore lasting peace to the Near East."

S/8236 was the only pending Soviet Draft resolution. It was tabled on 10 November and discussed by Mr Eban during the 1375th session on 13 November 1967. See S/PV.1375(OR) starting at para 3. It does not mention refugees, and really only supplemented the Secretary-General's recommendations that were reported in S/7896. The only other Security Council draft the Soviets submitted was the earlier US-USSR resolution which was co-authored with Goldberg. The Soviets did submit a draft resolution to the Emergency Session of the General Assembly, but UN ODS is not responding right at the moment. So, I can't say for sure what it said on that subject. harlan (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Not that I'd put it beyond a politician to pull information right out of their ass, but I'm slightly surprised they'd include an incorrect reference. If the reference doesn't say what they claim it says we obviously can't use it.

Your thoughts on the Goldberg quote? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet Union had actually submitted a draft resolution on November 20, (document S/8253) which includes the following provision:

(c) "There must be a just settlement of the question of the Palestine refugees."

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ef952d6e12538a348525730f006ae06e?OpenDocument

Upon presenting it to the Security Council Ambassador Kuznetsov said:

"The Soviet Union is in favour of a peaceful and just settlement of the problem of the Arab refugees, based their lawful, rights and interests." (S/PV.1381)

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/96842546e13a993905256723004e8175?OpenDocument

Accredited (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

General Sanctions Notice

I've added the warning to this talk page regarding general sanctions that apply to this article as part of the Palestine-Israel discretionary sanctions. The subject of this article is the centerpiece of a current dispute at Six-Day War which has resulted in a 1RR parole being instituted as well as the article being protected due to edit warring. These articles are intrinsically linked therefore editors are warned not to carry that dispute over here or you may be subject to sanction. That would be inclusive of prior behavior from that article. --WGFinley (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion not really meant for here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A few interesting facts to observe: I arrived on this page to edit. Wgfinley soon thereafter arrives to post this warning. The only other contributions Wgfinley has made on this page were in response to my own. Coincidence? WP:HARASSMENT states: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target." Let's observe the pattern: (1) Blocking me on a wholly spurious pretext, with the admin granting my appeal stating "I see nothing in JRHammond's comments at that talk page that warrant a block, let alone a one week block, and particularly a "cool down" block."[17]; (2) Posting personal information about me I had never revealed myself in direct violation of WP:OUTING.[18]; (3) Banning me for 48 hours on the basis that I had violated 1RR[19] when the facts were that: (a) an edit I made[20] was reverted by an anonymous IP editor on the basis it was not well sourced,[21] (b) I did not revert back to my original edit, but rather (c) added a great many authoritative sources in order to satisfy the raised objection;[22] (d) and, moreover, my edit improved the article by replacing an unsourced and demonstrably false statement with a very well sourced statement of fact; (4) Blocking me for 7 days and banning me for two weeks on the basis that I had violated my spurious 48 hour ban[23] when the facts were that: (a) My above noted improvement to the article was reverted by the same anonymous IP editor with no legitimate explanation and without discussion,[24], so I (b) restored my edit to prevent the unsourced and false statement from remaining in the article,[25], (c) all of which is in keeping with the the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines, the whole purpose and intent of which is to create a conducive environment for the improvement of articles,[26], which demonstrates further that you were merely "Utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles", demonstrating clear disregard for the purpose and intent of the rules you feign to uphold; (5) telling me I "shouldn't be" contributing to the Talk page after my ban and block had expired and threatening to ban me again for "carrying the edit war from the article on to the talk page",[27] a reference to my having proposed a solution to a problematic passage in the article that was reviewed, approved, and implemented by an administrator;[28], (6) my current ban on the Six Day War article based on demonstrably false and misleading claims, such as the lie that I had expressed that I "believe proper usage of the template is 'unreasonable'"[29], which in fact what I said was "I will continue to employ the tag as it was intended to be used"[30], (7) issuing further veiled threats of punitive action against me on the basis that my comment "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?" was "combative".[31], (8) following me here to post a "General Sanctions Notice" that "prior behavior" from the Six Day War article (all of the above) are not to be carried on here, which is a rather transparent threat of further abuse and harassment from you. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time, Guy? JRHammond (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC) This article's talk page isn't the proper venue for that and second, it's that strange that I would come from Six-Day War to a UN Resolution about the Six-Day War? One that's been the center of the debate on Six-Day War and that I had referred to this page before you even posted here? --WGFinley (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC) What is the proper venue? Please tell me, and I'll take it there. As for your question, my answer is above. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC) If you contend I've abused my admin powers that would be WP:ARBCOM. --WGFinley (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Got it. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A Simple WP:OR vs Proper Primary Sources Test

JRH - you want the article to say this:

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,

Therefore, you need to do either one of the following:

1. Provide a primary source where Eban said the above. There should be a date and a quote as to when he said "I approve of the resolution as long as.....", that's the only one that's acceptable use of a primary source otherwise you're making "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."
2. A reliable secondary source that says it.

You've been asked for secondary sources but haven't provided any. --WGFinley (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I've already rephrased, Wgfinley.[32] JRHammond (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Repost what you rephrased then, for some reason these articles are hard to follow. --WGFinley (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Happily. Done. JRHammond (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel position on 242 (cont'd) - Please approve/disapprove proposed edit

This is a continuation of a previous section. I've been asked to repost the latest update so as to overcome confusion. The background is here:[33] Please see my original post there.

I've rephrased my proposed edit to satisfy certain objections:

During deliberations over Resolution 242 in the Security Council, delegates from member nations expressed their governments' understandings of the resolution.[34][35][36][37] 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,[38][39] 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."[40]

JRHammond (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem in using primary sources is the summary, you are highlighting what two delegates said. Why not what the UK delegate said immediately after? Or the US delegate after that? This is why relying on secondary sources is important. --WGFinley (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We could include every single UNSC member and observer's position if people like. But the point here is to show what the Israeli position was. I defer again to my comment that began this discussion: "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."

Now, if it were up to me, I would simply summarize it thusly (or similarly): "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." But objections were raised to paraphrasing, so I instead just provided more context and quoted directly from the delegates, which made this a much lengthier paragraph to say the exact same thing. JRHammond (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of explaining the same thing over and over. You obviously don't understand WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, nor are you trying to. I object to this edit until a secondary source supporting the claims is provided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand WP:OR and WP:SYNTH perfectly well. You obviously don't understand WP:VERIFY. I've rephrased the paragraph, removing the rewording you objected to before. So if you still, object, please quote which part you object to and state why. Line by Line:

(a) Verifiable fact: During deliberations over Resolution 242 in the Security Council, delegates from member nations expressed their governments' understandings of the resolution.

(b) Verifiable fact: 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."

(c) Verifiable fact: 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."

(d) Verifiable fact: Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war.

(e) Verifiable fact: The Israelis had argued that resolution did not call for unconditional withdrawal...,

(f) Verifiable fact: ...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."

Please tell me which part, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f), you object to. JRHammond (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:V links to WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources which says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.". Find a secondary source that supports your claims. I'm done going around in circles with you. I'll respond only to new material, preferably a secondary source. Do feel free to tenaciously get your last word in, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This entire matter is already addressed in the article, why can't you just add citations to what is already there? Harlan's citation below could also go there. --WGFinley (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you point that out, since that whole section is completely unsourced, except again, to a primary source. I think it should be removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No I noted that and that's why I encouraged the section should be sourced because it appears to summarize the issue with brevity. --WGFinley (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Removed unless sourced. It editorializes a bit with stuff like a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions, but that's not really the main issue. We need some secondary sources both for the analysis/synth and notability. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WGFinley, that section is strictly about interpretations of the resolution with regard to the extent of withdrawal. This goes to acceptance of the resolution, and it's important to add to the lede because much of the lede discusses acceptance of the resolution. If the section on statements by UNSC members is sufficient, then we can just remove the three paragraphs about acceptance from the lede. Again, as I originally explained, "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!" I am trying to address the issue raised by another editor and correct this.

NMMNG, There is no need to cite any secondary source(s). "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." There is no original research, no analysis, and no interpretation in my proposed edit. Now, if you disagree, once again, please tell me which part, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f), you object to, and on what basis. JRHammond (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just like the UN minutes you like to cherry pick the parts of the policy you like and leave out the parts that you don't. The part of the policy you leave off is: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." D E and F are all synth because when I read what you wrote I assumed Aban responded to the Indian delegate after he said it and he didn't, in fact he didn't say it anywhere that I can find. That is at the worst analytic and synthetic, at BEST it's evaluative, either way it is OR of a primary source. You made these claims on Six-Day War and you were banned from editing that article because you refused to listen to anyone who opposed you, you are going down the same road in this article. It's not me saying this it's the other editors who have tried to work on this article and they've been very reasonable in their requests. There have to be secondary sources out there about Six-Day War and this resolution that discuss the controversy surrounding this issue. They are already in the article, if you don't think they are representative then you need to find other secondary sources. --WGFinley (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You argued: "D E and F are all synth because when I read what you wrote I assumed Aban responded to the Indian delegate after he said it and he didn't, in fact he didn't say it anywhere that I can find." I'm not sure I understand your argument here. You assumed Eban responded to the Indian delegate after which one (Eban or Parthasarathi?) said what and which one (Eban or Parthasarathi?) didn't say what? As best I can interpret this, you are trying to argue that Eban did not respond to the Indian delegate. If that is the case, you are mistaken. Once again, Eban said:

"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."

So how can you say I've "synthed" on the basis that Eban did not say what I quoted him as saying in response to the Indian delegate? This is a verifiable fact. Looking again at the sentences you claim are "synth":

(d) Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war.

There is no "synth" here. It is a demonstrable and verifiable fact that numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war, apart from minor and mutually agreed upon revisions to the 1949 armistice lines (ask harlan; he'll confirm these facts). I've already presented their statements to that effect at great length, above. It seems you haven't even bothered to examine the sources. Once again, for example:

"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." -- Vasili Kuznetsov, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)

"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." -- Mahmoud Riad, UAR representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)

"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)

"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,..." -- Endelkachew Makonnen, Ethiopian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)

"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)

"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." – Abdul Monem Rifa'I, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)

So how can you argue that it's "synth" to say that numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories?

(e) The Israelis had argued that resolution did not call for unconditional withdrawal...,

There is no "synth" here. It is a demonstrable and verifiable fact that the Israelis had argued that the resolution did not call for unconditional withdrawal. I've given you sources. Did you even bother to look at them? Yet again, apparently not.

(f) ...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."

There is no "synth" here. Once again, it is a demonstrable and verifiable fact that Eban responded to Parthasarathi by saying the above.

Your objection on the grounds of "synth" is prima facie invalid. The facts are precisely as I've stated them, and anyone here can verify them. It might actually require an effort to do so, but if you aren't even willing to actually take a reasonable amount of time to familiarize yourself with the sources, you can't very well reasonably object on the grounds that the sources don't support the above statement. Check the sources. Anyone here can verify the accuracy of my above proposed statements. JRHammond (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I trust that satisfies all stated objections on the grounds of "synth". JRHammond (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not take the fact I don't respond to every single thing you put on this page as agreement to include the content you were proposing. I've seen you make that argument before, so I'm just making it clear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't agree the above completely satisfies the stated objection, once again, please tell me which part, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f), you object to, and on what basis. JRHammond (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You've previously objected on the basis it's WP:OR. Yet no statement is original thought. Every statement is attributable to the source, and verifiable. I've pasted numerous excerpts from the source here for others' convenience to verify it. You objected on the basis it's WP:SYNTHESIS. Yet I've neither drawn any conclusions nor implied anything that isn't directly attributable to the source. You've said I need to provide secondary sources, but I haven't interpreted anything -- I've quoted directly from the sources for the most part and otherwise accurately paraphrased -- and primary sources may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source", which is precisely what I've done. JRHammond (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Proposed edit

JRH, there have been several unsuccessful attempts to add analysis from secondary sources to this article in a subsection on the inadmissibility principle. NMMNG has always deleted the material. I would not characterize Israel's position on resolution 242 as "acceptance". That is a legal term with a defined meaning. O. M. Dajani, notes that in November of 1999, just as negotiations were beginning, Ehud Barak said that resolution 242 was inapplicable to the West Bank. See ‘Forty years without resolve: tracing the influence of Security Council resolution 242 on the Middle East Peace Process’ (2007) 37 Journal of Palestine Studies page 33. To the best of my knowledge and belief Israel has never accepted the applicability of any UN resolution to the city of Jerusalem.

The fact that Israel has obfuscated its non-acceptance (even "defiance") of resolution 242 through an "interpretative fog" is very well documented by a number of secondary sources that are already cited in the article. Sydney Bailey wrote that 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. Bailey mentions that Eban said it was a doubtful principle. [41] Prof. Lynk notes [42] that:

• The General Assembly had already held an emergency session in which it had adopted resolutions deploring the de facto annexation of East Jerusalem and portions of the West Bank (see Prof Lynk page 1). *Note: The ICJ performed a legal analysis of Israel's "Implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (l967) and 338 (1973)" - Construction of a Wall, ICJ reports, page 138. It said that 242 stressed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war (para 74) and that, from 1967 onward, Israel took steps aimed at changing the status of East Jerusalem. The Security council recalled "the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible" and condemned those measures (para 75).

• "During an earlier Security Council session, on 13 November 1967, Eban had stated that the inadmissibility principle was not relevant to the Middle East because it grew out of the particular historical experiences of Latin America, and was not transferable: UNSCOR, 1375th Meeting (13 November 1967), at para. 49. (“It is not relevant to transfer the territorial doctrines and experiences of another hemisphere to an area in which the only territorial agreements which have ever existed have been based on military considerations alone.”)" (Lynk page 15).

• Lynk says "Tellingly, Eban’s stratagem at the Security Council on the day of the vote meant avoiding any comment on the inadmissibility principle in 242, even though most of the formal statements delivered by Council members had made specific and frequent reference to it when addressing the meaning of the withdrawal provision" (Lynk page 15).

Eban explains that the first British drafts did not meet Israel's "minimal claims" and that the USA informed the British delegation it would not support any resolution without Israeli and Arab acquiescence. He says that the subsequent changes:

• Protected Israel against attempts to dictate solutions from the outside.
• Second, the objective of the resolution was now stated to be the establishment of a just and lasting peace "to which all other provisions, including the withdrawal of forces would be subordinate."
• On the boundary question there was a perceptible loophole for our cause." -- Abba Eban: An Autobiography, Random House, 1977, 0394493028, page 451

Lynk writes (page 10) "For Abba Eban, the indefinite language was a “perceptible loophole”, which authorized “territorial revision” for Israel’s benefit. This was not Caradon’s view. As he would later state, he was prepared to see some insubstantial and mutually beneficial alterations to the 1949 armistices lines, such as a re-alignment of the boundary at Latrun and Tulkarm to resolve some border awkwardness. But he opposed any territorial annexation."

The American states have been incorporating in their international law, since 1890, by means of conventions, resolutions and declarations, the proscription of territorial conquest and the non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force (First International Conference of American States, 1890); [43] Military occupation falls under the condemnation of intervention by one State in the internal or external affairs of another and was specifically prohibited by Article 11 of the Montevideo Convention [44] and Article 21 of the OAS Charter[45]

About 20 League of Nations member states were Latin American countries. The Wilsonian doctrine of non-annexation was one of the cornerstones of the LoN System of Mandates (which applied to Palestine). The historical connection of Wilson's doctrine to the mandates was recalled in the 1966 Southwest Africa case. See Elihu Lauterpacht Editor, International Law Reports, Cambridge University Press, 1968, ISBN 0521463823, page 528 [46]

Mr Eban initially told Ambassador Goldberg that Israel had no colonial or territorial ambitions. [47] Lynk writes that on 27 June, both the Israeli Cabinet and the Knesset voted for the “municipal fusion” of Jerusalem by annexing Arab East Jerusalem and some of the surrounding West Bank. Within the Israeli Cabinet, the strongest ministers – Moshe Dayan, Yigal Allon and Menachem Begin – were presenting plans for retaining some or all of the “new lands”. Quietly, the Cabinet began approving projects during the summer of 1967 to colonize the occupied territories, and the first settlements soon began appearing in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan, usually under the guise of military camps. When Rusk reminded Eban later in the summer about Israel’s pledge, Eban shrugged his shoulders and said: “We’ve changed our minds. Israel’s keeping territory,” (pages 5 and 6)

The FRUS reflects that by August Israel began talking about holding onto territory. Eban said Israel considers it has right to hold such territory which was used as a base for attack on Israel until it is assured such aggression will not occur again. [48] In two of his books, "Shakespeare's Henry The Fifth And The Law Of War" and "War crimes law comes of age: essays", Theodor Meron mentions that the responsibility for the outbreak of the Six Day War has never been authoritatively established, but that the Security Council emphasized in Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." The General Assembly emergency session ended on 16 September 1967. That same day Meron, the legal counsel of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, wrote a top secret memo to Mr. Adi Yafeh, Political Secretary of the Prime Minister regarding "Settlement in the Administered Territories" which said "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the Administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." See And the Land was Troubled for Forty Years [49] and page 99 of Gorenberg, Gershom, "The accidental empire: Israel and the birth of the settlements, 1967-1977", Macmillan, 2006, ISBN 080507564X

Under Secretary Katzenbach called in Israeli Ambassador Rabin in November of 1968 to express concern at the indications that Israel was thinking in terms of a peace settlement involving territorial acquisitions by Israel in the Sinai and West Bank — a position the USA could not support. Note: Katzenbach mentioned the President's 10 September speech (to B'nai Brith) in which the President said "There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. At the same time, it should be equally clear that boundaries cannot and should not reflect the weight of conquest." [50] In a subsequent meeting Eban complained the US had changed its position [51]

A multitude of sources, including Lynk, McHugo, Dugard, Orakhelashvili, and etc. explain that Security Council resolutions must be based upon international law. The relations between states are governed by international law, not by the rules of English grammar or Security Council resolutions. Alexander Orakhelashvili noted that Judge Elihu Lauterpacht emphasized in the Bosnia case, that jus cogens norms of international law unconditionally bind the Security Council. The International Court had affirmed that international organizations, like the UN, are bound by general international law in WHO Regional Office [1980] ICJ Reports 90. See Orakhelashvili, The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, EJIL (2005), Vol. 16 No. 1, 59–88; doi: 10.1093/ejil/chi103 The ICJ analysis in the Wall case (para 87) said "As the Court stated in its Judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v. United States of America), the principles as to the use of force incorporated in the Charter reflect customary international law (see ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 98-101, paras. 187-190); the same is true of its corollary entailing the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force."[52] harlan (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is simply false. What I said is that the inadmissibility principle shouldn't be the bulk of this article. The fact it is mentioned at least 10 times in this article is pretty good proof of that. As I said before, feel free to write an article about the inadmissibility principle and summarize it here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, we have a quote farm because you've repeatedly blanked an entire subsection of the article that summarized the published majority viewpoint about the meaning of the resolution, i.e. That it stresses a compelling norm of international law that governs the settlement and the scope of the Israeli withdrawal. [53] [54] WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV policy require that majority viewpoints be included in this particular article, not a separate article. The banner at the top of the page explains that this article is within the scope of the Wikipedia International Law project.

Several sources say the Charter is a treaty that grants the Security Council the power to recommend "substantive terms" for settling their disputes and that it can also direct the parties regarding the principles of international law that will guide the resolution of their disputes. See for example, Dajani, O. M., 'Forty Years without Resolve: Tracing the Influence of 242 on the Middle East Peace Process', (2007) Journal of Palestine Studies Autumn 2007, Vol. 37, No. 1, Pages 24–38 , DOI 10.1525/jps.2007.37.1.24 page 25.

Article 13 of the UN Charter tasks the General Assembly with promoting the progressive codification of international law. It adopted GA resolution 686 (VII), "Ways And Means For Making The Evidence Of Customary International Law More Readily Available" It mandated that a répertoire of the practice of UN organs be prepared under the supervision of the Secretariat of the United Nations. The official 'Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council' [55] contains an analytical table of Security Council decisions (Chapter 8) for 1966-1968 which says that the preamble of resolution 242 contains two "substantial measures that govern the final settlement".[56] See for example on page 5:

• "IV Measures for Settlement"
  • "A." Call for compliance with principles and purposes of the Charter
    • Situation in the Middle East(II)
      • Decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble, para 1(ii), second part para 2(c)"
  • "E. Provisions bearing on issues of substance including terms of settlement"
    • "1. Enunciation or affirmation of principles governing settlement"
      • "(a) Inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war,
        • Situation in the Middle East(II):
          • Decision of 22 November 1967 (resolution 242 (1967)) preamble"

The legal analysis of the ICJ in the Wall case underscored the "illegality" of the acquisition of territory by force. Prof De Waart cites resolution 242 and explains that Israel "may not annex the OPT because the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force has become a peremptory norm of international law. For that reason, the advisory opinion on the wall refers not only to the principle of non-annexation but also to the prohibition of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory and to the right to self-determination. See Non-annexation page 483, Paul J. I. M. De Waart, International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process, Leiden Journal of International Law, 18 (2005), pp. 467–487

Thomas Grant cited John Dugard, 'Recognition and the United Nations' regarding the UN regime of non-recognition. On page 113, Dugard said that the UN Security Council had based its call for non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem on UN Security Council resolution 242 and 478. Dr. Grant explains: "At the level of a regional organization, the rule of non-recognition was enforced by the threat of expulsion — a threat that went beyond recognition of the incorporation of the occupied territories into Israel and indeed extended to recognition of Israel itself." See East Timor, the U.N. System, and Enforcing Non-Recognition in International Law. You invented a WP:OR synthetic (and non-sequitur) argument when you said: "You turned his "regional organizations" (meaning the Arab League) into "the UN system"." In fact, the applicable UN Regional Group is "the Asian Group". The Arab League is not a UN Regional Group, does not control appointments, and has no power to recommend that members of the UN be expelled. The General Assembly called upon the Regional Groups to take action to wipe out the last vestiges of colonialism. See B. Activities at the Regional Level on page 50 and General Assembly resolution 39/146 [57]

Denmark participated in the 1996 Declaration made by the Council of Ministers of the European Union regarding the annexation of East Jerusalem. It provides an example of the rule of non-recognition in state practice. The ministers reaffirmed the policy that: "East Jerusalem is subject to the principles set out in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, notably the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and is therefore not under Israeli sovereignty." [58] Why should the bulk of this article be about grammar and a bunch of inconclusive quotes about interpretation? harlan (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask again, why don't you write an article about inadmissibility principle and summarize it here? I'm serious. You keep trying to insert the same information in multiple articles which are not the right place for an in depth discussion of this information. If there was one article where this was discussed, all you'd need to do is summarize it wherever you need it.

As I mentioned many many times, I don't think the bulk of the article should be about grammar and a bunch of inconclusive quotes. This article looks like complete crap right now. It really shouldn't be so complicated either. These guys think it talks about full withdraw, those guys think it talks about partial withdraw. These guys think withdraw should be conditional on secure and recognized borders, those guys think withdraw should be unconditional. Here is some background on the drafting process. Here are a few other resolutions that reference this one. How hard could it be? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, Harlan already answered your question. There is no reason not to have the information in this article, as Harlan rightly observed. That said, I agree with you this article looks like crap right now. It's incomprehensible. There's good info, but it needs to be rewritten in a more readable way for the average user to be able to scan through and get something out of it.

Harlan, I of course agree. I wouldn't call Israel's position "acceptance", either, except insofar as I indicated above, a conditioned acceptance. An acceptance according to their own unilateral interpretation. I think this is quite well supported by the documentary record, as you've just demonstrated. I was hoping to get you to comment on my proposed edit, whether you would approve of it or not, and if not, why not. Would you please do so? I'd appreciate it. JRHammond (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The information already is in the article. The inadmissibility principle stuff which harlan had been slowly trying to edit war into the article over months if not years, should not be the bulk of this article. The fact he keeps trying to insert this information into IP articles but refuses to work on an article specific to this issue is quite telling. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC

Quite telling? What are you trying to insinuate? What's the problem with having this information here? It's directly related to 242, and can hardly be separated from this article. JRHammond (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break, The Goldberg Quote

The last time we discussed it, Zero cited a Quigley article which said that it was not part of the Security Council discussions or original intent of 242. Like the Jewish Daily Forward, Quigley thought the issue was just a bargaining tactic. I said I had no doubt that it was a legitimate issue.

Some, but not all, of the Arab states did legally expel Jewish citizens in connection with the hostilities. After WWII any expulsion, deportation, or involuntary transfer of a population in connection with an armed conflict has been considered a crime. The article already cites Orakhelashvili that ‘Just settlement’ must be presumed to mean that the Council did not adopt decisions that would validate mass deportation or displacement, since expulsion or deportation are crimes against humanity or an exceptionally serious war crime. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties formally codified the customary prohibition against concluding treaties going-forward that would violate any norm of international law (e.g. Articles 52-53).

My only beefs with the Goldberg quote previously were that, (a) like the Congressional resolution, the JCPA citation did not source it; and (b) that there was no mention of Non-Arab refugees in the Security Council discussions (other than Soviet and Bulgarian references to "Palestine refugees", e.g. S/PV.1375). That terminology cannot be used to support a claim that the Soviets were excluding Jewish refugees. I mentioned above that the UNRWA did handle members of both communities as bona fide "Palestine refugees" and that Israel itself had limited the UN to discussing only the repatriation of Palestine refugees at the Lausanne Conference. In any event, I've found that the Goldberg quote can be sourced to a 1988 article that is currently cited in the "See Also" section (with a 404 broken link).

The context clears up the meaning somewhat. The article is about the origin, meaning, and significance of 242. Goldberg isn't necessarily claiming that it was an "original intent" to recognize the Palestinians or all of the Jewish refugees, but rather that time works changes (e.g. The Vienna Convention) and that [now] both groups need to be recognized in any just settlement. He is speaking in a lawyerly fashion and obscuring the difference between international obligations and the things that were left open to the concerned parties to resolve among themselves privately, Res inter alios acta. For example, the FRUS records that Harmon and Eban said Jordanian sovereignty in East Jerusalem was negotiable. Goldberg states the corollary that 242 leaves open the possibility of a negotiated agreement for a unitary Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty and predicts "No Israeli, dove or hawk, will ever surrender any part of Jerusalem." Regrettably, Goldberg did not choose to explain the exact extent of the Erga omnes significance of Ambassador Yost's announcement that the U.S. government considers East Jerusalem to be "occupied territory" that is subject to the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

Here is the whole quote:

"A notable omission in 242 is any reference to Palestinians, a Palestinian state on the West Bank, or the PLO. The resolution addresses the objective of “achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.” This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars. Of course, time works changes, and the Camp David Accords recognize that the rights of Palestinians will have to be recognized in a comprehensive peace settlement. --U.N. Resolution 242:origin, meaning, and significance

[59]

The draft Camp David Accords did mention both Palestinian and Jewish refugees, but those references were eliminated and the final version simply reads "refugees" (which presumably refers to Syrians, Palestinians, & etc). I would forget about the original intent/Soviet draft stuff and summarize Goldberg's logic that time changes things and that going-forward the rights of the Palestinians and Jewish refugees must be part of any comprehensive settlement. harlan (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"...the USSR delegation trying to add language to specifically limit the resolution to Palestinian refugees..." I have never seen anything in the documentary record to support this assertion. JRHammond (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely what the USSR delegation tried to do. See above. Accredited (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that I have never seen anything in the documentary record to support the implication that the USSR was deliberately attempting to exclude the right of return of Jewish refugees, and, as Harlan has observed, "Goldberg and Eban's post-war discussions, like those between other US, Israeli, and Security Council officials, dealt with Arab and Palestinian refugees, not Jewish refugees." Thus, this wording singling out the USSR as referring specifically to Palestinian refugees is therefore unreasonable. JRHammond (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan was apparently unaware of the Soviet draft referring specifically to Palestinian refugees. It would have excluded compensation to the Jewish refugees which is quite unreasonable. Accredited (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, as Harlan has observed, "Goldberg and Eban's post-war discussions, like those between other US, Israeli, and Security Council officials, dealt with Arab and Palestinian refugees, not Jewish refugees." Thus, this wording singling out the USSR as referring specifically to Palestinian refugees is therefore unreasonable. JRHammond (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

During the June Security Council discussions, Ambassador Goldberg declared: "Our concern includes all who might find themselves in areas of the Middle East disrupted by this conflict." The Soviet attempt to narrow the scope of the resolution specifically to Palestinian refugees is absolutely unreasonable. Accredited (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Earlier, I had asked you if you have an explicit reference to "Jewish refugees" from earlier conflicts. I take your response as a reply in the negative. You should move the discussion about the Soviet Union attempt to limit the scope of the resolution to WP:FTN. The members of the Security Council, including the USSR, had already unanimously adopted the text of resolution 242 before Kuznetsov even made the remarks that appear in paragraph 117. The USSR can limit any resolution it wants by simply exercising a veto.

I notice that Goldberg's remarks on the occasion you mentioned above were strictly limited to refugees of the 1967 conflict. Do you have any references regarding the numbers of Jewish refugees that were created as a result of the 1967 war? In his remarks he mentions "Our concern". During the June sessions Goldberg was discussing the Middle East-US-USSR draft Resolution. Secretary Rusk wrote a memo [60] which says the US-USSR draft resolution was explained by Goldberg in a July 27 speech that was published in the State Department Bulletin. In that speech, Goldberg widened the scope beyond the 1967 refugees. He said the nations of the area must finally address themselves to the plight of those who have been made homeless or displaced, by wars or conflicts of the past, both distant and recent. [61] Do you suppose the removal of the language "wars or conflicts of the past, both distant and recent" from the final text of 242 was an attempt by both Goldberg and the Evil Empire to limit the resolution to the refugees of the 1967 war? harlan (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet draft was submitted four days after the 242 draft and two days before its adoption. In paragraph 117, Ambassador Kuznetsov said that he preferred his draft and admitted his failure.

Resolution 242 applies both to the Arab and Jewish refugees of the Middle East.

Consequently, the working paper of October 1977 on the Geneva Conference states:

4. "The solution of the problem of the Arab refugees and of the Jewish refugees will be discussed in accordance with terms to be agreed upon." Accredited (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dr. George E. Gruen states:

Resolution 242, still considered the primary vehicle for resolving the Arab-Israel conflict, stipulates that a comprehensive peace settlement should necessarily include "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Justice Arthur Goldberg, the American delegate who was instrumental in drafting the unanimously adopted resolution, has pointed out that the adjective "Palestinian" or "Arab" was deliberately omitted from the resolution to indicate that the claims of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands need also to be addressed.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jl102.htm

Accredited (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you've simply argued in a circle. The JCPA/Gruen claim about Ambassador Goldberg's statements regarding the refugees were unsourced. They were challenged during the previous discussion and removed from the article. In his 1988 article, Goldberg didn't mention any negotiations to deliberately omit the terms "Palestinian" or "Arab" from the resolution. He proposed that the language used "presumably" refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees. [62] harlan (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of Primary Sources

I think your discussion is a prime example of why you need to be very careful when using primary sources. I see a lot of debate about the meaning and action of primary sources, that is WP:SYN (it's humorous the example provided there is concerning the UN) and shouldn't take place. You need to introduce secondary and tertiary sources that draw the conclusions. It seems both sides of the discussion have gone astray. Specifically you need to review the following concerning primary sources.:

Policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

I think if both sides would more closely follow this policy you could work through your impasse. --WGFinley (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been supplying secondary sources and basing my discussion on the analysis from John Quigley, Security Council Resolution 242 and the Right of Repatriation, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXXVII, No. 1 (Autumn 2007), pp. 49–61; Michael Lynk, Conceived in Law: The Legal Foundations of Resolution 242, (2007), 37:1 Journal of Palestine Studies; The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions', by Alexander Orakhelashvili, The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.1; Lord Caradon, An Interview with Lord Caradon, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3/4 (Spring - Summer, 1976), pp. 142-152; and The Jewish Daily Forward; [63]

I've been reduced to discussing primary sources because Accredited/Statesman1/et.al. make a regular habit of deleting explanations and analysis published in secondary sources with the complaint that the individuals or primary sources "speak for themselves", e.g. [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] harlan (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely wasn't aimed at you Harlan I have found you do your best to stick to source material. --WGFinley (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source which indicates that Israel raises the Jewish refugee issue as a negotiating tactic. During the Camp David II Summit, Israel categorically refused to discuss the Palestinian right of return and said that its responsibility to compensate refugees for property losses was offset by the claims of Jewish refugees from Arab Countries. See Dajani, O. M., 'Forty Years without Resolve: Tracing the Influence of 242 on the Middle East Peace Process', (2007) Journal of Palestine Studies Autumn 2007, Vol. 37, No. 1, Pages 24–38 , DOI 10.1525/jps.2007.37.1.24, page 33. harlan (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So Israel raises it as a negotiating tactic. Does that make the wording in 242 exclude Jewish refugees? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Position of the Government of Japan

"The Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan, Susumn Nikaido, issued a statement on behalf of the Japanese government on 22 November 1973. It deplored the continued occupation of the Arab territories by Israel, and stated that for her future development Japan might have to "reconsider her policy" towards Israel. The statement contained the following important points” (1) The Japanese Government had consistently hoped that a just and lasting peace would be achieved in the Middle East through 'prompt and complete implementation' of Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967; (2) The Japanese Government believed that the following principles should be adhered to in a peace settlement (a) the inadmissibility of acquisition and occupation of any territory by use of force; (b) the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories occupied in the 1967 war; (c) respect for the integrity and security of the territories of all countries in the area and the need of guarantees to that end; and (d) recognition of and respect for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. . ." --Mahboob Alam, Iraqi Foreign Policy Since Revolution, Mittal Publications, 1994, ISBN 817099554X, pp 138-139 harlan (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How is that notable for this article? I hope we're not going to add a paragraph for every statement anyone ever made that referenced 242? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, is there a proposed edit here? Good info, but for what use with regard to the article? JRHammond (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, the article quotes a passage from McHugo which says that during the Security Council debate only Canada, China, Denmark, Japan and the USA made no statements on the record, which touch directly on the meaning of the withdrawal phrase. That may leave the reader with the false impression that the policy makers of those countries or the members of those UN delegations have not commented on the matter. The cite above is a third-party verifiable published source which indicates that Japan adheres to the UN Charter prohibition against the threat or use of force to acquire or occupy the territory of any state, and that it says Israel should withdraw from all the territories occupied in the 1967 war.

China was one of the many countries that voted to adopt General Assembly resolution A/RES/46/82, December 16, 1991. It recalled Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973 and "Declared once more that peace in the Middle East is indivisible and must be based on a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the Middle East problem under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of its relevant resolutions, which ensures the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories.." See A/46/PV.73 Note that China recognizes the State of Palestine. [69] harlan (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So if I'm reading you correctly, you want to add a statement from 1973 so a reader won't get what you think is the wrong impression from what an RS said about what happened in 1967? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break, Re:Full McHugo analysis

Not exactly, McHugo said that the four states mentioned above had said nothing that touched directly on the meaning of the withdrawal phrase. In addition he said that each of those states had made comments that were incompatible with the belief that the resolution permitted Israel to unilaterally retain territory. So, the analysis mentioned in the article on that point is incomplete and sorely lacking. See John McHugo, Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-Wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase With Reference to the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, October 2002, vol 51, pp. 858–9, pages 871 and 872.

McHugo noted that the British, Indian, Nigerian, Bulgarian, Ethiopian, Soviet, Brazilian, Argentinian, and French delegates all made a clear reference to the wording concerning the inadmissibility of the use of force in the preamble and used it to construe the Withdrawal Phrase. He said that the Japanese delegate had also emphasized the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, but did not specifically link it to the Withdrawal Phrase. He pointed out that the absence of a specific comment by Japan on the text of the Withdrawal Phrase cannot be taken as a sign of disagreement with the broadly congruent views of the other delegates who did interpret the wording from the floor of the Council. He also noted that the Japanese delegation had prepared its own draft resolution which used the words ‘withdrawal of Israel’s armed force from the territories occupied as a result of the recent conflict and determination of the permanent national borders between Israel and the state concerned’.

In his other article, McHugo says "According to the Security Council Official Records, no member of the Security Council suggested in the meeting, either before or after the vote, that Israel might have a unilateral right to retain some of the territories as part of a final settlement. See John McHugo, Resolution 242 – Why The Israeli View Of The Withdrawal Phrase” is Unsustainable In International Law, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, Winter 2000–2001, pp 84–90, esp. page 89 harlan (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan wants to add a statement from 1973 so a reader won't get the wrong impression that the Japanese government has not stated a position on the 1967 resolution. Fail to see how that is in any way unclear. And it's a reasonable concern. I agree the position of Japan should be included. I would observe, however, that it's not true that the Japanese delegate did not comment on the matter during UNSC deliberations:

But resolution 242 (1967) which we have now adopted states in clear and simple terms the principles and objectives upon which peace in the Middle East must be based. We emphasize "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security". We affirm that "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East...should include the application f both the following principles: "(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".[70] JRHammond (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Request For Comment - Straw Poll

Is my proposed edit synthesis? Is it not verifiable? I'm having trouble understanding objections on the basis that it is "original research". So I would appreciate it if others would review and comment and help us out here. If anyone requires specific quotes from the sources to support any statements therein, I'd be happy to provide them upon request. See details below. JRHammond (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The original discussion is here:[71]. In an attempt to satisify stated objections, I repeatedly rephrased, leading to a new section and further discussion here: [72] This is the proposed edit as it currently stands. I'm open to suggestions on wording. JRHammond (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

During deliberations over Resolution 242 in the Security Council, delegates from member nations expressed their governments' understandings of the resolution.[73][74][75][76] 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.[77][78][79][80] The Israelis had argued that resolution did not call for unconditional withdrawal,[81][82] 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."[83]

I wish to reiterate and clarify the purpose of this proposed addition, which I stated when I proposed my original edit (which evolved into the above): "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 point is to show what Israel's position was on 242. Again, I'm open to suggestion as to how to best do that. JRHammond (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Edit

I'm not sure "support edit" (currently the title of this section) would define me well, as I think it could use some substantial trimming, but there's no original research or synthesis in this section. The source is making the argument, not the editor. I'd certainly like to see the two sentences before it in the article sourced, though. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to examine and comment. I absolutely concur it could use substantial trimming. Unfortunately, the length is entirely due to the fact that I was forced to quote verbatim from the source at length, rather than simply briefly paraphrasing, to overcome objections of "synth". Perhaps if enough support for this tentative edit can be achieved, I can work with others to summarize and trim it down. On your last sentence above, I'm not sure which two sentences you are referring to you think require sourcing. Could you please clarify? Thanks again. JRHammond (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis has nothing to do with paraphrasing. It has to do with using two sources to prove a conclusion not explicitly mentioned by either source. What did you have in mind in the way of paraphrasing?

The two sentences I was referring to are, "Supporters of an 'all territories' reading [...] prior to the adoption of the resolution." This is an unsourced claim. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading over your sources now. One of the first things I noticed was that the Syrians expressed their opinion that the resolution did place conditions on withdrawal. The Syrian delegate says, "It follows that none of the draft resolutions submitted to the Security Council so far is accepted by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic because they subject withdrawal to conditions." The fact that his interpretation contradicts the Indian interpretation is certainly worth mentioning. I will continue to look through the source. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC) The Soviet delegate is still more explicit. He says that the resolution did set conditions for withdrawal, and also did not require withdrawal from all occupied territory. He speaks at great length. See, "Nevertheless, as many members of the Security Council have said at previous meetings, [...] And the interpretations by Israel, which asserts that the General Armistice Agreements of 1949 approved by the Security Council are not binding on it, go very far." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Saepe, see the Talk:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#Israeli_conditional_acceptance_of_242 section to understand what actual edit the OR and SYNTH charges were made against. JRHammond has since changed the text of the edit, but not his description of the arguments against it, interestingly enough.
Also, please notice you're dealing with a primary source here.
And the quote from the Indian delegate is already in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1. @Nice Guy, what do you mean by, "his descriptions of the arguments against it."
2. @Nice Guy, yeah the old proposal would have certainly been synthesis. Can we agree this one is not?
3. @JRHammond, you're going to have to change the wording here, as it makes it seem as though India said this during deliberations on the resolution. It said this during a rites speech, which is given after the resolution passes or fails, as evidenced not only by the backward-looking tone of the Indian speech, but also by the preceding text, "A vote was taken by show of hands. The draft resolution was adopted unanimously." This, of course, deprives of it of any status but a vent as far as international law is concerned, and makes me question whether it should be included at all. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll address your points, but first, I wish to note that you seem to be commenting with regard to a previous proposal, and not this one (regarding conditionality of withdrawal). Please note I revised it to address that issue already. That said, you are relying on statements made by the Syrian and Soviet delegates from Nov. 15, which was one day before the U.K. draft resolution was introduced, which was the one finally accepted. The comments you quoted were with regard to the U.S. or other draft resolutions, not the one finally adopted. As for you suggestion the wording needs to be changed, I'll clarify to note the Indian delegate's statement as made after the vote. But this is not a legal discussion, it's simply a discussion of what various nations' views of the resolution were, and what their intent was in passing it. So the Indian delegate's statement is reelvant to that end. I'll rephrase and repost, but I'll have to do so later as I don't have time now. JRHammond (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are interpreting a primary source. That's OR per WP:NOR. For the nth time, you need a secondary source that supports the content you're trying to put in the article, both for the purpose of ascertaining notability and avoid novel interpretations. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1. @JRHammond, my mistake on the dating of the speeches. Of course, this phraseology hardly changes between the drafts, but to imply that in the article would be WP:OR. I must admit that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that you should have linked to this first source, if it contains only discussions on November 15. If this source is irrelevant to the topic (as you say it is), why link to it?
2. @JRHammond, you never answered my challenge that India gave this speech after the resolution passed.
3. @JRHammond, you write, "you seem to be commenting with regard to a previous proposal, and not this one (regarding conditionality of withdrawal)." Of course I'm commenting on conditionality of withdrawal, that's the only thing under dispute in this paragraph.
4. @Both editors, Mr Nice Guy's comment has led me to read both source and text material more carefully. I must concede that he is (at least partially) right. While there is nothing wrong with referencing primary sources, I now have come to think this draft takes too much freedom with it. Namely, the paragraph violates WP:Synthesis when it says, "Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war." The source doesn't say this. You decided to do headcount, and to keep track of who was in favor of what position. The only other delegate that I see making a similar statement is the Nigerian delegate, and also during rites speeches, which makes the statement irrelevant. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) I didn't say it wasn't relevant. I simply pointed out that the Syrian and Soviet delegates weren't saying the U.K. draft resolution called for a conditional withdrawal, as you mistakenly asserted. But the discussion on the 15th is still relevant in that it still shows delegates' expressions of their intent that any resolution should call for a full withdrawal. What phraseology hardly changes between the drafts? To imply what would be WP:OR? Please clarify.

(2) The statement from the Indian delegate quoted was made prior to the vote. I'm not sure why you suggest otherwise. Notice he says, "It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council..." But this is a moot point, because as I said, the Indian delegates' statement is relevant for showing what India's position was on 242. The whole point here is to show Israel's position on 242, which was offered by Eban in response to the Indian delegate's statement.

(3) But the only place in the current proposal where conditionality is mentioned is: "The Israelis had argued that resolution did not call for unconditional withdrawal." What do you dispute here? I don't understand.

(4) I don't understand. That "Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war" is a verifiable fact. In every one of these examples, delegates explicitly expressed precisely that view:

"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." -- Vasili Kuznetsov, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)

"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." -- Mahmoud Riad, UAR representative at the UNSC, November 16, 1967 (S/PV.1379)

"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)

"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,..." -- Endelkachew Makonnen, Ethiopian representative at the UNSC, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382)

"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)

"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." – Abdul Monem Rifa'I, November 22, 1967 (S/PV.1382) JRHammond (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The UAR and Jordan were not members of the Security Council. Foreign Minister Abba Eban alluded to the Indian delegate's failure to get his draft adopted when he said: "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.

"Thus, if the representative of India is in any predicament, he should not escape it by reading into the text adjectives and place-names which do not occur in the text. He must know that the crucial specifications to which he referred were discussed at length in consultations and deliberately and not accidentally excluded in order to be non-prejudicial to the negotiating position of all parties. The important words in most languages are short words, and every word, long or short, which is not in the text, is not there because it was dliberately concluded that it should not be there." Accredited (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The UAR, Syria, Jordan, and Israel were not members of the Security Council. Correct, Eban alluded to the failure of India's draft resolution to get adopted. How are either of these factual observations a basis to oppose my proposed edit? JRHammond (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You may mention these facts and quote Eban's actual words in the Statements by Security Council representatives section. Accredited (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Please do so. Your suggestion would not resolve the issue. The point is not simply to show what delegates said at the UN. The point is to show what Israel's position on acceptance of 242 was, which is a matter currently discussed in the lede. Now, if people would support moving that existing discussion down into the body, I'm fine with that, too. But, either way, this issue must be addressed and a reasonable solution found. Either Israel's position at the time of 242's passing be also noted in the lede or the discussion of Syria's position also be removed to the body, as per your above suggestion. I'm fine with either solution. JRHammond (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The article correctly states that Israel's acceptance came on May 1, 1968. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html Accredited (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, you didn't answer my question. Please do so. And your latest statement doesn't address the issue. There is no reason why Israel's position in '67, at the time of the resolution's passage, should be excluded because of it's position in '68, whether it be the same or different. Please thread your comments. JRHammond (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out what that statement of "acceptance" actually said (emphasis added): "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace." This is completely consistent with its position in '67, which I am trying to find a way to work into the article. Your cooperation would be appreciated (such as by answering my questions), as would any suggestions you may have for how to do so. JRHammond (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The JCPA is a questionable source. The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel had already answered official inquiries from the UN Secretary General saying that every step was being taken to place East Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. An Israeli civilian administration was installed a few days after the war and Israeli municipal laws were being enforced. See S/8146, dated 12 September 1967 [84]

On 27 April 1968 the Security Council discussed the Secretary General's report and adopted resolution 250 which called upon Israel to refrain from holding a military parade through East Jerusalem as part of its Independence Day celebrations on 2 May 1968. The Israeli representative who made the so-called "acceptance" statement was actually Mr. Tekoah, not Ambassador Eban. Several members noted that Israel's statement did NOT indicate that Israel had rescinded all of the legislative and administrative measures it had taken to alter the status of East Jerusalem. Israel conducted the military parade as planned, and the Security Council adopted UNSC resolution 252 after further discussions of Israel's compliance with resolution 242 and General Assembly Resolutions 2253 (ES-V) of 4 July 1967 and 2254 (ES-V) of 14 July 1967.

Resolution 252 "reaffirmed" the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war; considered all of the legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel invalid; and called for them to be immediately rescinded. See Higgins, Rosalyn, The Place of International Law in the Settlement of Disputes by the Security Council; 64 Am. J. Int'l L. 1 (1970); the verbatim record of the 1 May 1968 Security Council session [85]; and the 1419th, 1420th, and 1421st sessions held on 2-3 May 1968 [86] [87] [88] [89] harlan (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me return to the numbered points above, for the sake of order:

1. The phraseology of the USA draft was nearly identical to phraseology of the UK draft. Therefore the Syrian and USSR speeches ought to be valid. However, we can't use them because to imply this connection without a secondary source would be OR.
2. Good point. My mistake; I was reading the wrong text.
3. I see the following sentence as having to do with conditions: "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." But if you disagree, then the Israeli view should not be included in this paragraph, as the Indian delegate is speaking only about full vs. partial withdrawal, and the Israeli delegate is speaking about conditional vs. unconditional withdrawal.
4. It's not just about whether the statement you made is true or not; it's about whether a reliable source made it. If you are the one who interpreted delegate positions--not a RS--then you are engaging in synthesis. Moreover, I would submit that your argument is flawed, and to prove this, I will go in the order of quotes that you provide:

1. This is a rites speech, given after the vote. It is not part of the discussion, and therefore not admissible in this context. The USSR never said this before the vote. In fact, they routinely implied otherwise, because they wanted their (more strongly worded) draft to be adopted. Once the vote passed, they tried to cut their losses. If this weren't an about-face, that would be one thing, but this is inconsistent with their position throughout debate.
2. The UAR representative is saying that the resolution ought to call for a full withdrawal. He's not saying it does.
3. Same as #2 above.
4. Same as #2 above.
5. Same as #1 above.
6. Same as #2 above.

The quotation that Accredited furnished from the UK representative quite brilliantly refutes the Indian speech, and the two ought probably to be mentioned hand-in-hand (with much fat trimmed out of them). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've stricken the sole sentence you view as problematic and replaced it with one that takes your concern into account. It no longer states this was their understanding of the resolution, simply that it was their position that Israel should fully withdraw. Does this satisfy your objections? JRHammond (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolution 242 explicitly states "to promote agreement" and mentions "a peaceful and accepted settlement." Accredited (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. What is your point, and what does this have to do with the discussion here? Why do you continue to refuse to answer my previous question? JRHammond (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That was not the only sentence that I found problematic. That was the only sentence that I noticed violated synthesis policy. Here is my counter-suggestion to your suggested addition:

During deliberations over Resolution 242 in the Security Council, delegates from member nations expressed their governments' understandings of the resolution.[90][91][92][93] 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." The Israeli ambassador to the U.N. responded to the Indian delegate by saying, "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."[94]

Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, "Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war." The objection is that this is interpreting primary sources and thus WP:OR. I'll try a different approach. Here are secondary sources supporting this:

The official comments made by the Security Council members immediately before and after the 22 November 1967 vote on the Resolution (summarized above) are a compelling endorsement of the complete-withdrawal interpretation of 242. Eight of the 15 Council members explicitly stated that the Resolution required Israel to return all of the territories captured in the June 1967 war. Two other members – England and France – said as much, but in somewhat more muted diplomatic language. The other five members, including the United States, said virtually nothing on the record respecting their reading of the withdrawal provision. However, none of them asserted, even implicitly, that Resolution 242 permitted Israel to withdraw from only some of the 1967 lands.[95]

Bulgaria, Ethiopia, France, India, Mali, Nigeria, and the USSR stated during the debate that they considered the text of the Resolution to require an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories. Brazil and Argentina stated that, although they voted for the Resolution, they would have preferred an earlier draft of which they had been among the sponsors, and which was explicit on the requirement for an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories. According to the Security Council Official Records, no member of the Security Council suggested in the meeting, either before or after the vote, that Israel might have a unilateral right to retain some of the territories as part of a final settlement. [96]

As I've given secondary sources now explicitly supporting my originally proposed sentence, there can no longer be any objection to that sentence on the basis of WP:OR because of reliance solely on primary sources. Does this satisfy your remaining objections? JRHammond (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out once again that this quote from the India rep is already in the article, in the Statements by Security Council representatives section. Is there any particular reason to have it twice? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not do so, NMMNG. But without it, Eban's reply has no context. If you're willing to work with us on paraphrasing it, that would resolve that matter. JRHammond (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

JR, thank you for finding these secondary sources. They're a big step up here. My first qualm with them is that I can't read the documents. Can you direct me towards someplace where I can find the full text of the first? The link to the second is altogether dead (at least for me).

You'll notice also that the two quotations you provide contradict one another. The second (essentially) states that Argentina and Brazil did not find this draft to explicitly require a withdrawal from all territories, whereas the first states that the other members "said virtually nothing on the record" on the subject.

I'm also not quite 100% sure that the second one is true, as I cannot find a speech by the French representative speaking to that effect. But this is certainly a good step forward, and we can start a fresh discussion on the subject from here. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Both links work, and the files can be downloaded from the links. The both clearly support the statement "Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war." That's the bottom line, so whether they contradict each other on other points is moot.

But, just to be clear, they don't. Brazil and Argentina had a reasonable fear that Israel would interpret it its own way so as not to withdraw because it didn't include a reference to the 1949 armistice line (they were presciently correct). They themselves still understood 242, however, as calling upon Israel to fully withdraw. "Argentina and Brazil both emphasized that the occupation or acquisition of territories by the use of force should not be recognized" (Lynk). Naturally, they wouldn't have voted for the U.K. draft had they thought it might recognize the acquisition of some territory by Israel by the use of force would be recognized by it. Lynk does not include either country among those who "said virtually nothing on the record" about it. As for the French delegate, McHugo is absolutely correct. The French delegate was absolutely explicit that the resolution called for a full withdrawal. In fact, he responded to the Israeli argument that the absence of the definite article "the" meant Israel did not have to withdraw from "all of the" territories by pointing out that the intent of the USNC was perfectly cleat that Israel was required to fully withdraw, and that the French version of the text, equally authentic and authoritative, did include the definite article. Again, the bottom line is both secondary sources fully support the statement "Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war." I see no basis for any further objections here. This meets the requirement for verifiability and thus cannot be objected to any longer on the basis of original research which, as I understood it, was the entire basis for your objection.

The source provided by Harlan below offers further support for that, as it also notes that numerous delegates expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal. I don't see how this is any way controversial.[97] Here's yet another source: "In 1967, 10 of the 15 Security Council members emphasized in their interventions the “inadmissibility” principle and Israel’s obligation to fully withdraw. None of the other Council members specified any disagreement on this point."[98] JRHammond (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Saepe Fidelis, the French Delegate's statement is in the verbatim record of the 1382nd session of the Security Council. There are a half-dozen sources cited above which explain that UK Foreign Minister George Brown and the UK delegate Lord Caradon arranged for the Indian delegate to read the statement in question. He was reciting George Brown's statements on the British position regarding withdrawal and they were affirmed by Caradon for the record. That was a condition for Arab acceptance and was necessary to prevent a Soviet veto. Please read the subsection above titled "Arbitrary break, Pre-arrangement for statement of Indian Delegate."

JRHammond, Lynk notes that Eban avoided any comment about the inadmissibility clause on the day the resolution was adopted. Eban confirmed in his autobiography that the US had advised it would not support a resolution without both Arab and Israeli acquiescence. Gordan Brown told the Israeli government that they would have to accept language that implicitly called for full withdrawal. Goldberg was instructed to make a statement on behalf of the US government that the wording of the resolution would not prejudice the positions of the parties concerned. The Israeli position called for withdrawal on the basis of a peace agreement. The Arab position called for complete withdrawal from all of the occupied territories. McHugo points out that while the US, Canadian, Japanese, and Danish delegates said nothing on the record directly linking the inadmissibility clause to the withdrawal clause, they all made statements that were incompatible with an interpretation that Israel could unilaterally retain territory. He cites statements by the Danish and Canadian delegates that the ‘resolution just adopted does, in our view, meet the essential positions of both sides'. That published view contradicts Accredited's WP:OR interpretation that the position recited by the Indian delegate was not incorporated in the resolution that was adopted. See RESOLUTION 242: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE RIGHT-WING ISRAELI INTERPRETATION OF THE WITHDRAWAL PHRASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS, page 871 (pdf file page 21 of 32) harlan (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of those facts, Harlan. Thanks. I was not aware of the further source you provided, however, so thanks additionally for that. JRHammond (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As an FYI the text that Harlan is referencing makes frequent reference to a book by Allan Gerson, that book is available on Google Books if any are interested, there appears to be a chapter on this issue. --WGFinley (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am currently looking over these sources. I can't find in what journal they were published in full. Could someone please direct me towards that information? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I included the links in my last posted comment, and also added them to my proposed edit above. JRHammond (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I followed the links. This time they both worked for me. Again I ask, do you know who published these papers? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The McHugo article has been reliably published and cited. It appeared in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly volume 51, October 2002 pp 851–882 and was cited twice (para 18) in the legal analysis submitted by the Republic of South Africa as a participant in the proceedings before the International Court of Justice regarding the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. See page 8 of the pdf file containing the Written Statement of the Republic of South Africa [99]. The Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East factsheet contains a footnote which indicates that it is a circular reference to the same McHugo analysis. harlan (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In order, a shorter version of the Lynk paper was published in the Journal of Palestine Studies, as you can see at the link; The McHugo paper was published in the IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin Winter 2000-2001, as you can see at the link and in the PDF; the other McHugo paper was published in the International & Comparative Law Quarterly, as you can see in the PDF; and the fact sheet comes from Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, as you can see in the PDF, and as Harlan just observed.

Look, you challenged my edit on the basis of WP:OR because you challenged that numerous other delegates expressed their understanding of the resolution as calling for a full withdrawal as being interpretive. I personally don't see how that is not obvious from the primary sources, but it's a moot point now, as you now have numerous secondary sources explicitly stating the same thing. The stated objection is no therefore no longer valid. So if you have no further objections, and whether or not your curiosity about publishing info is fully satisfied, perhaps you could restore your comments to the "approve" section where they were originally. I'd like to move forward, please. JRHammond (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

@JR, I was more than simply curious. Sources are important. Tone down down the biting tone, if you could. We're all on the same side here.

As far as the Lynk paper, I saw that a shorter version was published in the JPS, but was wondering where the paper was published in full. Thank you for pointing out the publications of the other papers. They are certainly reliable sources.

As far as OR goes, you would no longer be violating synthesis policy by adding this paragraph, although I can't help but wonder why you resorted to an RfC if you could have resolved this dispute by bringing in these sources earlier. So now that these sources are in the mix, how does your proposed edit read? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Saepe Fidelis, I appreciate the time you've put into this, don't mistake me. I know sources are important; that goes to my point, which was that the stated objection has been more than satisfied by the academic papers provided, the publication information for which is available with each link. The Lynk paper is published in full at the website the link takes you to (needless to say), the Social Science Research Network, which is a scholarly website that publishes academic papers. The reason I didn't bring secondary sources earlier is because the primary sources demonstrate the point perfectly well. No sense needing source B to tell us what source A says when we can all look at source A and see what it says for ourselves. I simply saw no sense wasting any more time debating that point when there are numerous secondary sources available that completely satisfy the stated objection. My proposed edit is updated above to include the secondary sources. JRHammond (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure your original edit was pursued in good faith, the use of a secondary source was absolutely necessary to avoid synthesis. We are not allowed to draw conclusions out of a text, unless they are specifically mentioned there.

It would be strange if the JPS article were only published on that website, and I would prefer to use the other sources, unless we know what was published in the JPS, because only being published by an online source means not being able to be published by a real academic source. The other articles are, of course, solid.

The only major problem I still have with the proposed addition is the repetition of the Indian delegate's quotation. We can either remove it from the existing article, or find another solution. What are your thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

On WP:SYN, I disagree, but it's irrelevant now, as I've already presented secondary sources that made the exact same observations about the primary sources as I did. As for the Lynk paper, the fact that the full paper may be only available online is not reason to reject it. A condensed version was in print in the JPS, and SSRN is very much a "real academic source". I see no reason whatsoever not to include it as a reference. It's extremely useful for any reader wanting to learn more about the matter, I'm sure you would agree. I understand the concern about the repetition of the Indian delegate's statement, and share it. The problem with removing it from my proposed edit on the basis that it exists below, is that without it the quote from Eban has no context. I would propose, now that we've agreed on the basic framework here as being okay and not WP:OR, that we work together to shorten the whole thing by paraphrasing as much as possible, instead of relying on lengthy direct quotes. That was my original intention, anyhow. Let me know if that would work for you. And thanks for removing this back to where it was originally located. Now that that has been resolved, we can move forward, get this cleaned up, and hopefully make the edit sometime before the year is out. ;) JRHammond (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's too early in this part of the world for me to try to think of paraphrasing. But what I (perhaps too ambiguously) suggested doing, was not removing the Indian delgate's quotation from your proposed edit, but from the article as it now reads. You can further simplify the situation by placing the suggested addition in the article in place of where the Indian delegate's quote now is. Go ahead and add it, and we'll work on paraphrasing later. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that all of the secondary sources are already cited in the article, with the exception of the Canadian factsheet. Some or all of them have ref names and can be cited like so <ref name="Lynk"/> The verbatim record of the 1382nd session was cited with a broken link, so I went ahead and gave it a named link too <ref name="SP1382"/> harlan (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not completely familiar with the standard practice and proper coding for citations, Harlan, so thanks for the suggestions. But I'm not quite there yet in this discussion. The point, Saepe Fidelis, again, is that in the lede there is a discussion of Syrian acceptance of 242. Someone had posted a hidden comment suggesting Israel's acceptance should therefore also be noted, which is correct, in my view. The lede does have a sentence about Israel's acceptance of 242, but it's taken out of context and is from a year afterward anyhow. The whole point here is to include in the lede a statement about Israel's acceptance of 242. If this is not to be included in the lede, then the whole discussion of Syria's acceptance should also be removed to the body. JRHammond (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I totally misunderstood the point of this paragraph. Didn't realize it was for the lead. In that case, you might consider something much shorter (leads should be short). The lead says Syria "conditionally" accepted the resolution in 1972. Perhaps we should mention that Israel "conditionally" accepted it in 1967? That would be one sentence, would be in the same style as the Syrian mention, and would get accross the relevant parts of that entire paragraph. Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That was precisely what I originally proposed! How about something like: "During deliberations over the resolution, members of the Security Council and participating delegates from the Arab countries expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war. The Israeli representative to the U.N. Abba Eban expressed approval for the resolution on the basis of the alternative Israeli interpretation that withdrawal was conditional upon a final peace agreement." Or simply: "The Israeli representative to the U.N. Abba Eban expressed conditional acceptance of the resolution." But I think if we say it was conditional, an explanation is required, so I prefer the former to the latter. JRHammond (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Either ones fine. I have a slight preference for the second, because the main subject of dispute is conditionality of withdrawal. So the explanation winds up reading that the conditionality was that there be conditions. I'm not sure how much clarity that brings. Again, either one is fine by me. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump back in after not participating in the discussion for a few days, but it looks to me like we're still mixing two different issues here. There's the completeness of the withdrawal and the conditionality of the withdrawal. A complete withdrawal can be conditional and a conditional withdrawal can be complete. Saying that Eban's interpretation that the withdrawal should be conditional is an alternative to the interpretation that the withdrawal should be completle is incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So far I'm the only one who has addressed that point. A number of sources, including the FRUS and Eban's autobiography, say that the wording of the resolution could not prejudice the essential positions of either the Arabs or Israel. The Arabs insisted on full withdrawal and Israel insisted on withdrawal conditioned on peace. The resolution requires both,.

The secondary analysis says the majority of members explicitly linked the inadmissibility clause and the Charter Article 2 prohibition against the use of force to the withdrawal clause. Sydney Bailey, George Brown, and the FRUS prove beyond all doubt that Israel interpreted this to mean full unconditional withdrawal and begged the United States not to include any mention of the inadmissibility principle.

The FRUS and the secondary analysis also say that attempts to remove the inadmissibility clause were unsuccessful. So, the same Charter principles were then linked to a balancing "belligerency clause" that required all of the parties to terminate all claims or states of belligerency and to pay respect to and acknowledge the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

The FRUS, the Georgetown Symposium (Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity), and the JPS "Interview with Caradon" prove beyond all doubt that "secure and recognized boundaries" meant mutual political recognition and was not linked to any territorial changes. None of the parties supported the right of Israel to unilaterally retain any territory.

The Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council says that the clauses regarding the Charter principles and the principle of inadmissibility are issues of substance that will govern the final settlement. The FRUS contains US, Israeli, and USSR proposals that termination of belligerency and withdrawal could follow the example of the USSR-Japan declaration that terminated their war when no treaty agreement between them was possible.[100] [101] [102] President Johnson's five point speech mentioned the use of peace keeping forces. So, withdrawal was not linked to a final negotiated settlement. Caradon bluntly stated that 242 did not give Israel the right to occupy territory (the public law of the Inter-American states forbids occupation).

Sidney A. Freifeld, the Legal Advisor to the Canadian delegation corrected a Commentary Magazine article on that point: Mr. Rostow claims that “Israel is 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.” Regrettably, there is no such specific language in Resolution 242. What it does contain, deliberately, is a balance, viz, that (a), on the one hand, Israel should withdraw and (b), on the other hand, belligerency claims should be terminated and the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area should be acknowledged. That balance indeed implies that Israel not be required to withdraw until (b) is fulfilled, but 242 does not specify what Israel would or could do on the West Bank pending withdrawal. [103]

harlan (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think our Land for Peace section is sorely lacking. I also think a short blurb about it in the lead would be good. We talked about this a few months ago, but I don't remember what conclusions we arrived at.

Anyway, I just now realized that JRHammond wants this paragraph for the lead. If the purpose here is to portray Israeli's acceptance as "conditional" to mirror the Syrian position (despite having an official Israeli position already in the lead), we are, once again, going to need a secondary source that says it explicitly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yehuda Blum and the JCPA say that to start with, nowhere in resolution 242 does the phrase “land for peace” occur. [104] The UN has employed the phrase in a few other resolutions, but not in 242. The JCPA states that the Eshkol government, with the backing of the Knesset, extended Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration to the eastern part of Jerusalem on June 27, 1967; and claims that despite the fact that Oslo had made Jerusalem negotiable, it was still based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which did not call for a full Israeli withdrawal. [105] See Netanyahu: Jerusalem not a settlement but our capital [106] There is already an entire Wikipedia article devoted to Land for peace. harlan (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant "land for peace" in the sense that 242 balances the demand for withdraw with the demand for secure recognised borders. I'm not married to the term land for peace, although I think that's what most people would recgonise and understand. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. NMMNG observed that extent of withdrawal and conditionality of withdrawal are two separate things, and Harlan said he's "the only one who has addressed that point". I beg to differ. I have stressed a distinction between extent and conditionality throughout. I don't see that this as being an issue with the proposed edit. If others think the two are confused therein, it would be a simple enough matter to reword it slightly to clarify and emphasize the distinction. The two are related, however, in that in Israel's view a final peace settlement would include Israeli acquisition of some of the occupied territories, and only after such a settlement occurred would it withdrawal; so, logically, that Israel's interpretation of conditionality does go to the question of extent also. The point is, as Harlan said, "withdrawal was not linked to a final negotiated settlement" in the resolution, and no member of the UNSC interpreted or argued otherwise. That was a unilateral interpretation of Israel's. I would remind everyone of my originally proposed edit:

"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."

NMMNG says, with regard to the further changes discussed, that we need a secondary source showing explicitly that Israel interpreted withdrawal as being conditional upon a final peace agreement. I would remind NMMNG that I've already given two sources from the FRUS clearly demonstrating that fact:[107]. JRHammond (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does that source say Israel's acceptance was conditional? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. Quite the contrary, not a single UNSC delegate said that Resolution 242 calls for an unconditional withdrawal. That was the Indian draft resolution that failed to get adopted. Harlan's source acknowledges "That balance indeed implies that Israel not be required to withdraw until (b) is fulfilled, but 242 does not specify what Israel would or could do on the West Bank pending withdrawal." [108] Accredited (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, I already provided you with quotes from the link. Accredited, not a single UNSC delegate argued that "Israel not be required to withdraw until (b) is fulfilled". That was Israel's own unilateral interpretation, explicitly rejected by other delegates, as already gone over ad nauseum. JRHammond (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a long thread, I must be missing it. Could you be so kind as to point me to it again? I'm specifically requesting a source that says Israel's acceptance was conditional (as opposed to the 1968 quote we already have in the lead). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to a delegate who said that the resolution calls for an unconditional withdrawal. Accredited (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to a delegate, other than Abba Eban, who attached any conditions whatsoever to withdrawal. You'll find you won't be able to do so, Accredited, because nobody did. Hence the "unconditional".

NMMNG, I just gave you the diff to where I provided quoted from and linked two sources from the FRUS clearly showing that Israel insisted that withdrawal be conditional upon a final peace agreement. Once again: [109] JRHammond (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about the same quote, it says that Israel was trying to push a certain interpretation on the US, not that Israel made some kind of statement at the UN saying that it conditionally accepted the resolution. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The interpretation you refer to that Israel was pushing was that withdrawal should be conditioned upon a final peace settlement. Eban clearly repeated this interpretation at the UN, saying there could be no withdrawal without a final peace. I fail to see what is even the least bit controversial about this observation. JRHammond (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Where's the conditional acceptance of the resolution here? He was saying what he thinks he means, not that Israel accepts it only under certain conditions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Upon presenting the draft resolution to the Security Council, the U.K. representative Lord Caradon said: "All of us recognize that peace is the prize. None of us wishes a temporary truce or a superficial accommodation. We could never advocate a return to uneasy hostility. As I have said, my Government would never wish to be associated with any so-called settlement which was only a continuation of a false truce, and all of us without any hesitation at all can agree that we seek a settlement within the principles laid down in Article 2 of the Charter. So much for the preamble.

"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.

"As to the second operative paragraph, there is I believe no vestige of disagreement between us all that there must be a guarantee of freedom of navigation through international waterways. There must be a just settlement of the refugee problem. There must be a guarantee and adequate means to ensure the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area.

"As to the third operative paragraph, I have said before that I consider that the United Nations special representative should be free to decide himself the exact means and methods by which he pursues his endeavors in contact with the States concerned both to promote agreement and to assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted and final settlement."1379th Meeting of the UN Security Council United Nations, 16 November 1967] Accredited (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

@Accredited: Relevance? JRHammond (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lord Caradon's statement is self-explanatory. "All of us recognize that peace is the prize. None of us wishes a temporary truce or a superficial accommodation. As I have said, my Government would never wish to be associated with any so called settlement which was only a continuation of a false truce. ... both to promote agreement and to assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted and final settlement." Accredited (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The above statement specifically deals with the provisions of Resolution 242, while the material that you submitted relates to a completely different draft. Accredited (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Lord Cardon's statement is self-explanatory. What relevance you think it has to this discussion is not. Again: Relevance? Please answer the question. And please also thread your comments. JRHammond (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't this your question?

Please point me to a delegate, other than Abba Eban, who attached any conditions whatsoever to withdrawal. You'll find you won't be able to do so, Accredited, because nobody did. Hence the "unconditional". Accredited (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like wiki-lawyering to me - Caradon has not attached any conditions. Nor is there any relevance I can see to which precise draft is under discussion. Caradon is emphasising that the eventual 242 resolution must lead to a peaceful and accepted and final settlement. 86.181.228.168 (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lord Caradon's statement speaks for itself. It was precisely the draft that was adopted. Accredited (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're trying to suggest that Caradon was saying that the withdrawal was conditional, you're mistaken. He didn't say that. Nor does the resolution. Caradon was perfectly clear that the resolution required BOTH withdrawal AND a secure and recognized boundaries. Neither Caradon nore the resolutions conditions either one upon the other. In fact, Caradon was perfectly explicit, as already discussed elsewhere, that given the emphasized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, the U.K.'s position was clear that Israel must withdraw. Period. Please thread your comments. JRHammond (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. Quite the contrary, not a single delegate said that the resolution calls for an unconditional withdrawal. It links withdrawal to termination of all claims etc. Accredited (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)