< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://bokertov.typepad.com/ btb/" >

Thursday, August 05, 2004

Kol hakavod to Mimi Ito

Her letter in today's Daily Camera

ISRAEL: U.N. resolution didn't say 'all'

United Nations Resolution 242 of 1967 called for withdrawal of Israel from "territories occupied in the recent conflict." Juliet Wittman (Open Forum, July 29) asserts that this meant withdrawal from all territories Israel acquired, and only "extremists" claim it means some, not all. This is a common misperception. Three of the framers of this resolution have since cleared up the confusion.

"The notable omissions — which were not accidental — in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal ... without defining the extent of withdrawal," said Arthur Goldberg, the American ambassador who led the U.S. delegation to the U.N. at the time.

Eugene Rostow, American undersecretary of state for political affairs, wrote that when "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is achieved ... Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ... not from 'all' the territories, but from some of the territories..." As we know, no peace exists in spite of Israel's offers to give up much of its tiny land (0.046 percent of the entire Arab empire).

British ambassador Lord Caradon wrote "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its (previous borders) because these positions were undesirable and artificial." Israel had been nine miles across at its narrowest width, hardly an easily defensible border. We can see why those who hate Israel want her to return to those borders.

We should also note that:

1. Israel acquired these territories in a defensive war.

2. 242 required Arab states to make peace with Israel before Israel was to return any territories.

3. Israel gave up 91 percent of the territories when it returned the Sinai to Egypt.

4. 242 did not call for any territories to be given to Palestinians (something critics of Israel seem unaware of).


Surely Juliet Wittman is confused no more :)