UN Resolution 242: Setting The Record Straight

The Henry Jackson Society website has an interesting article on UN Resolution 242, which continues to be misconstrued, misinterpreted, and just plain distorted by those who think that when it comes to Israel, peace means unilateral concessions.

Here is the summary provided for the article:

* The Middle East’s geopolitical destiny is uncertain, with the Arab-Israeli conflict being but one of many factors that will determine this.

* June 2007 marked the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War, and November 2007 will commemorate 40 years since the adoption of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 242.

* Confusion remains over the proper interpretation of Resolution 242. The resolution’s primary components are often misunderstood or distorted. For example, many assume that Resolutions 242 and 338 call for a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-Six-Day War lines (the lines of June 4, 1967) and establish the principle of land-for-peace to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both assumptions are incorrect.

* The essence of Resolution 242 is that Israel is allowed to remain in the territories it captured in 1967 until such a time as “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” is achieved. The authors of the resolution emphasised time and again that Israel was not required to retreat to the pre-war lines.

* For these and other reasons, the Saudi Initiative/Arab Peace Plan twists the intent and meaning of Resolution 242: it demands a full Israeli withdrawal and implies that Arab refugees could settle anywhere west of the Jordan River. It is also unclear how this plan serves British interests, given that its full implementation would weaken Israel and thus jeopardise stability in the eastern Mediterranean.

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Israel and UN Resolution 242.