“Resolution 242 Revisited”: new research on Security Council’s approach to Israel-Arab conflict

[Mosby]

My new article, “Resolution 242 Revisited: New Evidence on the Required Scope of Israeli Withdrawal” has just been published in volume 16 of the Chicago Journal of International Law, and is available here. 242 may be the Security Council’s most famous resolution, yet amazingly, there are entire veins of evidence about its meaning that have remained untapped.

The article happens, fortuitously, to be quite relevant to the drama that will likely unfold in the Security Council this fall. So let me say a few words here about what the evidence developed in the paper suggests about these developments. (When I began working on the article last year, I did not know anything about a potential new Council resolution.)

France will reportedly soon introduce a new proposed resolution about the Israeli-Arab conflict in the Council. President Obama has repeatedly hinted that he might not veto such a resolution.

One thing the paper makes clear is that Res. 242 represented a territorial compromise, with accommodations to Arab and Israel positions. The French resolution – which mandates a withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice Lines – would specifically undo the parts of that compromise that were in Israel’s favor, and essentially “reverse” 242, replacing it with the resolution demanded by the U.S.S.R and Arab states in 1967. If the U.S. allows this to happen, it would be a fundamental reversal of 50 years of Middle East diplomacy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/07/resolution-242-revisited-new-research-on-security-councils-approach-to-israel-arab-conflict/

The PDF:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2534179

[still_one]

1. That preceded the Yom Kipper war, and because of that, things are different now

[Mosby]

2. 242 was passed after the 6 day war...

338 after the Yom Kippur war, which references back to 242.

[still_one]

3. Thanks. That's correct, the 6 day war resulted in 242. I am going to edit my original post, thanks to you

pointing out my error

[Little Tich]

5. This is the old territories without the article canard.

Suffice to say, there's nothing to back up the claim that the omission of the article would mean anything different than with the article - there are no other resolutions with omitted articles in the UN or elsewhere that would point to such an interpretation. It's also important to note that the French and Russian versions included the article, and the countries that voted based on those versions, certainly voted for "the territories".

EVery article from the Volokh Conspiracy is rubbish, I know that from before.

[oberliner]

6. No it's not

Did you actually read the 25 page paper? Seems like you haven't.

You can get it for free here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2534179

"Every article from the Volokh Conspiracy is rubbish"

And yet, oddly, Mondoweiss is AOK.

Author of this piece is Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law.

But you know better. The entire paper can be dismissed and not even read.

[Little Tich]

9. I had the same objections before I read the OP and the paper, and I have exactly the same objections

after.

The paper doesn't adress my objections at all, it's just contortions. In fact, I'm certain that the author of the OP is intentionally dishonest.

Read my objections in my previous post and try to see if they're addressed in the paper...

[oberliner]

10. OK fair enough

Those are reasonable points.

[shira]

11. You believe, for example, that a full RoR of millions is International Law...

....when that's just pure fantasy.

So what makes you think you're right about 242 and Kontorovich is wrong?

[Little Tich]

12. The proof in the paper actually proves that he's wrong.

The complete absence of any omissions of a definite article in any resolutions would indicate a typo, especially since the French and Russian versions of 242 have it. There is also the problem that there's no example in either legalese or plain English showing that omitting the "the", changes the sentence in any way. This is actually also the case in the other languages that I know.

In English, the definite article, eg "the" is often omitted from a sentence, and it never changes the meaning of that sentence. For example "Remove laundry from washing machine" has the exact meaning as "Remove the laundry from the washing machine".

So when this Kontorovich person argues that in this unique case, the omission is a new and revolutionary use of English that completely reverses the meaning of the sentence, and that there's no doubt that the English grammar has been wrong for 900 years, then I must say that he's wrong.

The legality / morality of the ROR is outside of the scope of the OP, at least for me. A better OP on that particular subject would help, of course.

[shira]

13. You have to know the history of 242, those from the US & UK who drafted it...

Like Arthur Goldberg, Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon...
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267

It doesn't matter whether or not you trust the source. Facts are facts.

France & the USSR wanted all territories returned. The US and UK objected & they won out.

[Mosby]

14. background on 242

www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-242.pdf

[shira]

7. 242 calls for secure & recognized borders. Jews weren't safe in pre '67 boundaries....

Most of the population of Israel in 1967 was within artillery range.

Borders can't be secure or recognized without negotiations first.

Khartoum 1967 was a direct response to 242: No negotiations, no peace, no recognition (of secure & recognized borders).

[azurnoir]

15. within range of exactly who's artillery? and how do settlements make Israel safer?

can you explain tis for us, especially that first one who's artillery?

shira
7. 242 calls for secure & recognized borders. Jews weren't safe in pre '67 boundaries....
View profile
Most of the population of Israel in 1967 was within artillery range.

Borders can't be secure or recognized without negotiations first.

Khartoum 1967 was a direct response to 242: No negotiations, no peace, no recognition (of secure & recognized borders).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134112335#post13

[shira]

16. Here's a view of Tel Aviv from PA controlled territory...

?w=477


The western part of Jerusalem is even closer.

Do you think it's acceptable for Israelis to have Hamas on their proverbial doorsteps?

[azurnoir]

17. The PA has long range artillery? who supplies them?