Recent comments by US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman created some controversy as covered in the Washington Post, which dissected his statements including:
The article links to the text of UN Resolution 242, which has served as a basis for solving the Arab-Israel conflict since 1967. The text specifically:
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict
HonestReporting pointed out to the Washington Post that its story referred to “the territory” but the actual resolution says “from territories.” It may look like a small issue of language but the difference is significant.
Why?
The drafters of Resolution 242 specifically said that they did not intend to call for a return to June 5, 1967 lines and purposefully used the words “withdrawal from territories” and not “withdrawal from the territories.”
Israel and the United States interpret the resolution as calling for a withdrawal from areas of the West Bank (and at the time, the Gaza Strip) consistent with Israeli security needs and in the context of a peace agreement, but not from all the territories.
The Jewish Virtual Library explains further:
The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from “all the” territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant “that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands.” The Arab states pushed for the word “all” to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word “all.” The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: “It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear.”
This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from “all the territories.” When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.“
Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: “The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words ‘the’ or ‘all’ and ‘the June 5, 1967 lines’….the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.“
As a result of our correspondence, the Washington Post removed the word “the” from its story. A one word correction that means so much.
