Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:25, 21 May 2011 editHarlan wilkerson (talk \| contribs)5,190 editsm →Preambular references ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:43, 20 October 2024 edit undo76.149.87.68 (talk) →Introduction: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
(160 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
	{{sanctions\|''' See ] for details.'''}}
			{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|
	{{WikiProject ~~Israel\|class=B~~\|importance=mid}}		{{WikiProject Egypt\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Egypt\|class=B~~\|importance=~~mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Syria\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WP ~~Syria\|class=B~~\|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Palestine\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Palestine~~\|class=B\|~~importance~~=~~Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Military history\|class= Start\|Middle-Eastern=y\|Cold-War=y\|b1=n\|b2=y\|b3=y\|b4=y\|b5=n}}
	{{WikiProject International relations \| law=yes\|~~class~~=B}}		{{WikiProject International relations \|importance=mid\|law=yes\|law-importance=Low\|un=yes}}
	}}		}}
			{{ARBPIA}}
	{{OnThisDay \|date1=2005-11-22\|oldid1=28958655 \|date2=2006-11-22\|oldid2=89531674 \|date3=2007-11-22\|oldid3=173152392 }}

			{{OnThisDay \|date1=2005-11-22\|oldid1=28958655\|date2=2006-11-22\|oldid2=89531674\|date3=2007-11-22\|oldid3=173152392\|date4=2012-11-22\|oldid4=524278325\|date5=2014-11-22\|oldid5=634961783\|date6=2017-11-22\|oldid6=811594025}}

	{{archives \|auto=long \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=14 \|index=/Archive index}}		{{archives \|auto=long \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=14 \|index=/Archive index}}
Line 13:		Line 15:
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 125K		\|maxarchivesize = 125K
	\|counter = 7		\|counter = 8
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|algo = old(15d)		\|algo = old(15d)
Line 24:		Line 26:
	\|indexhere=yes}}		\|indexhere=yes}}

			== Useless Map ==
	== Secure and recognised boundaries ==
			The "Map of territories occupied by Israel, Date 22 November 1967" accompanying this article makes no sense at all. It excludes the Sinai and it does not explain what the coloring means at all. ] (]) 21:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

	Harlan, you seem intent on completely misrepresenting my thesis that an Israeli withdrawal to "secure and recognised boundaries" defined by agreement would not infringe the inadmissibility principle. Here is a passage of mine from what you refer to as “the subsequent thread”:

	:::"In 242 recognised boundaries can only be defined by agreement so they cannot be imposed unilaterally and that includes the green line." ] (]) September 2009
	And here is your ] description of my position seemingly suggesting just the opposite:
	:::"...In the subsequent thread, Steve157 was discussing his own unpublished ] thesis that "secure and recognised boundaries" was intended to allow Israel to unilaterally retain some territory. The JCPA and Israeli sources certainly interpret the resolution that way, but Steve157 was trying to prove that the members of the Security Council had actually authorized unilateral territorial changes to address Israeli security concerns...] (]) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)"
	Please could you justify your statement above and if you cannot do so, please could you retract it and limit yourself to quoting me verbatim in future.--] (]) 01:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

	::::Steve do you have a reliable published source which says that 242 is only discussing a withdrawal to a final negotiated border instead of withdrawal from the territory occupied in the 67 conflict? The FRUS says the US told Israel a peace treaty wasn't even necessary:<blockquote>Secretary commented that Russians had told us they had eliminated their state of war with Japan many years before peace treaty achieved. There ought to be way for Arabs to do this with Israel even though no direct agreements feasible. http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d336 </blockquote>
	::::In his response to the Editors of Commentary Magazine the legal advisor to the Canadian UN delegation in 1967, Sidney A. Freifeld, wrote that Israel is not vested by Resolution 242 with the authority to administer the occupied territories until the Arab states of the region sign a final peace agreement. The General Assembly has certainly adopted a number of resolutions demanding the immediate unconditional withdrawal of Israel from all of the occupied territories. They do not mention any requirement for negotiated borders. ] (]) 19:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

	== Subsection on contents of The Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council ==

	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' 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". 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"

	Article 25 of the Charter says that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". The ''Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs'' says that during the United Nations Conference on International Organization which met in San Francisco in 1945, attempts to limit obligations of Members under Article 25 of the Charter to those decisions taken by the Council in the exercise of its specific powers under Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Charter failed. It was stated at the time that those obligations also flowed from the authority conferred on the Council under Article 24(1) to act on the behalf of the members while exercising its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. See page 5, The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts Relating to Article 25 Article 24, interpreted in this sense, becomes a source of authority which can be drawn upon to meet situations which are not covered by the more detailed provisions in the succeeding articles. See The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Extracts Relating to Article 24, The Repertory on Article 24 says: "The question whether Article 24 confers general powers on the Security Council ceased to be a subject of discussion following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21 June 1971 in connection with the question of Namibia (ICJ Reports, 1971, page 16)". . ] (]) 19:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
	:That's interesting. What exact text are you proposing to add to the article? ] (]) 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

	::I intend to include a summary of the analysis from the Repertoire regarding the decisions contained in resolution 242. Most of the historical information regarding Article 24 and 25 is already in the ] subsection of the United Nations Security Council article and the ] article. The inclusion of a "See Also" or "Main" article template and a short summary of that information is all that is necessary.

	::I might also add some material from Dajani's discussion of the role of the Security Council in international dispute resolution. That includes Charter functions and powers regarding the adoption of decisions that recommend or stipulate procedural and substantive terms for settling disputes. 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 25. These decisions were binding on UN subsidiary organs, including the Special Representative who was tasked to assist in obtaining "a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;" ] (]) 22:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
	:::A summary with a "main" or "see also" sounds good. Can I suggest once again that we start an "international law" or "legal issues" or whatever section where we can put all the legal stuff? ] (]) 23:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

	== CAMERA ==

	Writing "according to" does not allow editors to insert any unreliable source they like. If CAMERA's position is supported a real source can be found giving that position. But the opinions of CAMERA belong in op-eds on FrontPageMag or Arutz Sheva, not Misplaced Pages. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 02:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
	:Nobody has responded here but a "new" user say fit to reinsert that material. Unless reason is given for including such a poor source that material will be removed again. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
	you can choose ignore me because you don't like me or keep say i am "new" editor. makes no difference to me. i am here to contribute to encyclopedia and provide accurate reference information, and stop people from damaging wikipedia as quality resource. but when you ignore me and revert again you will be breaking wikipedia guidelines that say how people should edit. you have no right to decide that CAMERA is "poor source". it is ] to say what they report on, with "according to". so you gave no reason for removing proper reference information except ]. ] (]) 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
	::I have not decided anything. CAMERA has been discussed a number of times at the RS/N with there never being any consensus that it is a reliable source. If their opinions are valid more suitable sources can be found. It is a partisan organization with a history of distorting information to suit their politics. Using "according to" does not allow you to include any garbage website you like. Finally, you continually linking to DONTLIKE as if it meant something is becoming a tad annoying. ] is likewise not a valid reason, the only difference is I have not made an argument based on my not liking a source whereas the only argument you have made is that you do like it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
	:::actually it is exactly the only argument you have made. ie: "partisan organization with a history of distorting their information to suit their politics" "garbage website". this is not valid things to say especially when not true. but it doesn't matter. so can you show me now then this discussion where wikipedia RS/N made decision that CAMERA is not RS even when attributed to themselves with according to? ] (]) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::Those facts are well-established. They are a RS for their own views but nobody, least of all you, has said why those views should be included in a Misplaced Pages article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
	:::::can you show me this decision on RS/N where it said CAMERA view should be left out of wikipedia? it will clear up this discussion and help for us to not waste any more of each other time, because already we have wasted too much. thanks. ] (]) 15:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::::You can look yourself. That or you can actually answer why you reinserted their opinion. Just that they have one is not a reason for a WP article to include it. If their view has any validity a valid source can be found giving that view. Do you have a reason as to why you inserted that into an encyclopedia article? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
	:::::::that's what I thought. if and when wikipedia creates a guideline that CAMERA is banished from the encyclopedia, you can go around on your crusade and delete all mentions of it. until then please stop trying to ] thing that you ]. and obvious why i think it should be included, they talk about the content of this article unsc resolution 242 with an opinion about it, so why wouldn't it be include? same reason to include it as to include any other opinion. who says what opinion is more valid than someone else? ] (]) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::You really should read the things you link to. Nobody is "censoring" anything and nobody who had read ] would link to it in this discussion. Can you or can you not give a reason as to why CAMERA's views on this topic should be included in an encyclopedia article? CAMERA does not meet the requirements of ] and does not meet the requirements of ]. As such there is no reason to include their opinions in encyclopedia articles. They are not a reliable source for issues of international law. You liking their opinions is not cause for inclusion in the article. I dont even know why I am wasting my time dealing with you, you clearly do not know what you are talking about and just hounded me here after going through my contributions. Ill take this issue somewhere else. Bye. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

	(outdent) CAMERA and the MFA have both been discussed for misuse of quotes. See the talk page archives. Both use quotes by statesmen about 242 to imply that Israel is not required to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967. In many instances both organizations have omitted portions of the quoted statements regarding the requirements for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces or portions that are unfavorable to Israeli settlements in the Arab territories. The MFA is a party to the conflict and a primary source that can only be considered a reliable source for Israeli views, but not the views of other parties. CAMERA is a media watchdog and political action group with no scholarly credentials or official standing. Its publications consist of paid advertisements, Op-Eds, letters written by subscribers to its mailing lists, and its own website. Those are definitely not fact-checked or peer reviewed in any way. ] (]) 19:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

	:I don't see why info introduced from CAMERA cannot be included as long as it is attributed to that organization. We regularly include info from Peace Now and Betzelem, but attribute i.e. Peace Now claims ... --] (]) 01:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

	::Can we find a legal scholar saying the same thing? That would be much more helpful. Otherwise it looks like CAMERA coming up with innovative legal theories of questionable merit. ] (]) 03:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

	:::For some reason we can't quote the English-speaking Cabinet Secretaries responsible for negotiating and drafting this resolution. So, why are we being asked to give CAMERA space to make questionable and unsourced arguments?

	:::There is no such rule as the one CAMERA describes. A Secretary General's report A/2170, 18 September 1952, paragraphs 102-106 explained that it was undesirable for the Security Council to adopt rules designed for use by the other UN organs "The view has been repeatedly expressed within the Security Council, that the Council is, and should remain the master of its own procedure. It has been indicated that the Council should not commit itself to procedures which in practice might prove to be excessively rigid, since each dispute with which the Council has to deal has unique characteristics. Attention has been drawn to the danger that any premature formalization of the procedures of the Council might impede the latter in the discharge of its responsibilities under the Charter." The Council has been operating under its own "provisional" rules ever since.

	:::The Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council and those Security Council rules actually contradict the unsourced CAMERA argument about "the practice at the UN." The deliberations of the Security Council in 1967 were conducted in both French and English under the terms of the 4th revision of the Security Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure. Those rules were in force until the 5th revision entered into effect in 1969. During the deliberations on 242, "Chapter VIII Languages", Rule 41 said "Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish shall be the official languages of the Security Council, ''and English and French the working languages''." Rule 42 said that "Speeches made in either of the working languages shall be interpreted into the other working language." Rule 46 said "All resolutions and other important documents shall forthwith be made available in the official languages. Upon the request of any representative any other document shall be made available in any or all of the official languages."

	:::The verbatim record indicates that several members made their speeches in French, and that the French text of the draft resolution was discussed during the 1375th and 1382nd sessions. The French representative, the US Secretary of State, and the UK Foreign Minister all said that the French version was equally authentic and legitimate.

	:::In a May 1978 interview with the London Monthly magazine ''The Middle East''. UK Foreign Minister George Brown discussed the English vs French controversy:<blockquote><p>It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included. But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less. The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war. The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only minor border changes from the old frontiers - just to straighten the lines. I told the Israelis they had better accept it, because if they didn't they could be left with something worse, and with our version there would be something to argue about later. ...</p><p>We arranged that the Indian delegate, who was leading the non-aligned block with their own version, should make a statement declaring that the reference to territories should mean all territories. We arranged with them beforehand that we would not respond to the statement and therefore this interpretation would remain on the record. And the Indian delegate did, obligingly and in cohorts with the United Kingdom delegate, make that statement as we have seen.<p>(cited in Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, page 209 )</blockquote>

	:::"CAMERA" has no scholarly credentials or official standing. In this case its claims are contradicted by the published rules of procedure and the responsible officials, Rusk and Brown. ] (]) 07:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
	Shuki has reinserted the material without writing one word on the talk page. We know that the material is attributed to CAMERA, that isnt the problem and it is disingenuous to pretend that it is in the edit summary. CAMERA's opinions have no place in this article, they are inaccurate and contradict quality sources. If these opinions are valid a real source can be found giving them. Unless Shuki explains why he or she reverted without coming to the talk page I will re-revert the edit. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
	===Discussion at ]===
	I've opened a thread at ] on CAMERA and an Alex Safian article. ] (]) 19:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

	:The best objection to CAMERA might actually be if their legal interpretation of the Resolution is notable. They aren't a very good source for facts but even if they are a reliable source for their opinions, why do those opinions matter here? ] (]) 20:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

	::So we can remove Peace Now opinions on articles as well? Sol, articles are supposed to be NeutralPOV, and include all POV to stay neutral. --] (]) 21:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

	:::No idea on Peace Now. Maybe so! Are they offering a legal opinion on UN resolutions that seems to lack any academic support? ] (]) 21:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

	::::It is the usual case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'll repeat what I said at WP:RSN, LibiBamizrach argued about CAMERA's reliability and past WP:RSN cases with another editor on this talk page. The discussion at WP:RSN is inline with Misplaced Pages policy on identifying and ]. A number of editors apparently would like this question addressed. In the original post I mentioned examples of the use of inaccurate quotes and unverifiable research. ] recommends avoiding external links to any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. There is absolutely no reason to incorporate arguments from CAMERA that challenge reliable sources with inline citations if it does not qualify as a ] in the first place. ] (]) 22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

	:::::The material that I removed from the article was authored by Alex Safian. The discussion at ] has not turned-up any evidence that he has any qualifications outside the field of particle physics. The published Security Council rules of procedure say that French was both a working language and an official language during the deliberations on resolution 242. Several of the representatives carried on their discussions in French, and the legitimacy of the French version was discussed on the record. Safian's claim that only the English version is binding according to standard UN Security Council practice remains an unverified claim. ] (]) 23:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

	===Gerson Gorenburg===
	I've posted a new subsection at ] asking that editors who want to quote CAMERA respond to its use of false and misleading information and well-deserved reputation as an advocacy group. If CAMERAs self-published opinions are reliable and notable, then the Gerson Gorenburg articles in third-party publications about the Rusk cable and the Meron memo on the illegality of the settlements are certainly relevant secondary analysis too. Simply saying that CAMERA is a reliable source won't cut the mustard. They say President Carer engaged in serious falsehood and grossly mischaracterized resolution 242, but they completely ignore the official public records of the Johnson administration which support President Carter's views. The CAMERA material has been properly challenged per normal Misplaced Pages policy regarding material from questionable sources. WP:V does not allow the use of opinions from questionable sources regrding third parties. All of the external links and the quoted material in this article from CAMERA violate that policy. ] (]) 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

	== Page Protection ==

	I've protected the page for 3 days, my WP time has been limited due to a RL event this past weekend and it appears a good deal of edit warring has gone on for the past week or so. A "time out" to suss out issues was needed.

	The root cause of this dispute appears to be reference to by Alex Safian. I must ask the Pro-Israel editors why do you feel it that important to keep this 10-year-old editorial from an admittedly Pro-Israel author? All of the Sefian article's points are included in the article coming from the secondary sources which is exactly where they should come from.

	Finally, I think too much is being focused on CAMERA, the focus needs to be on the material in question. Pro-Arab/Palestinian editors shouldn't dismiss material out of hand simply because it comes from CAMERA and Pro-Israel editors should accept legitimate criticism of a source if that source is an opinion piece. Can we briefly and succinctly get this sussed out and agreed to? --] (]) 13:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

			I came to say the same. It is extremely odd as the conquest of Sinai was a principal cause of international shock. Among other things the area is twice the size of Israel + Gaza + Golan Heights + West Bank and extended up to the Suez canal. There is a good map that is used for the the ] ] articles. It makes sense to use it here as well.
	::Actually I'd like to delete all of the quotes in which CAMERA or the Israeli MFA are commenting on behalf of third parties. The Safian article does not appear to have been produced by an established expert on the topic of this particular article and his work in the relevant field has not been previously published by other reliable third-party publications. The published policy positions of the various governments and the United Nations are very well known. They could be summed-up in a few sentences. The bulk of the article is devoted to equally well-known Israeli MFA or CAMERA-sourced quotes and arguments which eschew stating the Israeli position directly. Instead they attempt to cast doubt upon the positions or intentions of the other governments with regard to resolution 242. Many of the published secondary sources cited in the Misplaced Pages article discuss that practice and take serious exception with it, i.e. it is a notable subtopic.

			I'm not sure how to get it to render in non-gigantic size, so I will just link it.
	::Several years ago Gershom Goernberg cited an example ( and ) where CAMERA demanded that the LA Times "correct" one of his articles that had reported on the contents of a telegram that had been published in the FRUS (the official documentary historical record of major US foreign policy decisions). The telegram was signed by Johnson administration Secretary of State Rusk and said the US had advised the Israeli Foreign Ministry that it viewed the establishment of civilian settlements in the occupied territories as a violation of the principles contained in the Security Council resolution and article 49 of the Geneva Convention. Gorenberg also discovered that on 16 September 1967 the MFA's legal advisor, Theodor Meron, had written an advisory opinion containing a similar conclusion. In 2010, CAMERA was still falsely claiming that those are "Carter-era positions on the legality of settlements", e.g. In the ] discussion, I cited published examples of other mainstream authors who said that CAMERA was an advocacy group that lobbies the media to impose its views on others.

			https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:6DayWarEnglish.png

			] (]) 23:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
	::Several months ago we had a discussion here about the reliability of the collections of quotes and material on resolution 242 that originate from the CAMERA and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs websites, e.g. See the MFA "Statements Clarifying the Meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 242". The overwhelming majority of them omit some (or all) of the relevant portions of the speaker's comments regarding the extent of Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. CAMERA's analysis of "U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity" (Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University) is based on quotes it cites from a tertiary source, "Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977", Yoram Meital, pg. 49., not on the full text of the policy positions contain in Caradon's Georgetown essay.

			:Snap! It's misleading because to put the resolution in context it needs to show the territories occupied to which the resolution's calling for de-occupation refers, the Sinai first. How can we change it? ] (]) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
	::Several journal articles, books, and magazines have commented on Israel's use of canned quotes and stray comments made by various statesmen about resolution 242. The authors of those articles (Glenn Perry, John McHugo, Donald Neff, and John Norton Moore) said that the comments are vague and appear to contradict what was actually said during the Security Council negotiations and deliberations, or make it appear that Israel can unilaterally retain some of the occupied territory. In short, neither CAMERA nor the Israeli MFA websites are widely regarded as reliable sources of information about UN, US, or UK policy positions on resolution 242. ] (]) 08:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
			::It's also misleading because it misrepresents which territories were occupied.
			::Resolution 242 is absolutely explicit that conflict does not move international boundaries, so the Gaza Strip annexed by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were occupied territories reclaimed during the Six Day War.
			::Sinai and the Golan became territories occupied by Israel, and the resolution demands their return. ] (]) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
			::: Love that "reclaimed". Sorry but your personal analysis is off-topic in addition to being wrong. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 ==
	:::That accords with my view. The politest way I can describe it is that the article is a sales pitch trying to sell a pro-Israel position. It puts the best gloss it can on everything it chooses to mention and stays quiet about inconvenient facts which would contradict what it says. In selectively quoting, though, it has entered directly into misrepresentation and mis-selling. Misplaced Pages is supposed to present factual information about what reliable sources say. I'd say that it's fairly clear that the article isn't itself a reliable source. Nor have I seen any evidence that it is used by reliable sources. Therefore, I can't see any reason why its argument should be outlined in the Misplaced Pages article. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←  ]  </span> 09:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

			{{Edit extended-protected\|United Nations Security Council Resolution 242\|answered=yes}}
	{{outdent}}If they trim quotes that is easily fixed with the correct quotes from reliable secondary sources. --] (]) 03:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
			The link to the UN document in the infobox does not work. It returns a 404 error. Please replace it with a working link such as this one: https://undocs.org/S/RES/242(1967) ] (]) 21:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
			:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 16:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

			== Potential Vandalism ==
	:The full quotes show that CAMERA's argument is invalid and a misrepresentation. Why, then, continue to detail what CAMERA says? <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←  ]  </span> 11:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

			Looking through the list of Security Council nations in the box template, I noticed someone had replaced China's flag with Taiwan's. Pretty sure this is vandalism as the associated link leads to the article on Taiwan rather than the one on mainland China. ] (]) 05:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
	== Preambular references ==

			== Preamble ==
	Halan, I see you reverted my restoration of a version of the preamble created by you and NMMNG that had been stable for nearly a year. During that time you made over 100 edits to this article so I presume on that basis that you cannot object too strongly to the version I restored.
	The version you restored seems to me not so much ] which of course it is, but rather fatally flawed. It makes the statement that the expression in quotes is a principle of international law. If you want to restore such a statement please provide some evidence that this is the case because frankly I can’t see how the following could be:
	"inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security."
	How would you apply that to a dispute between North and South Korea I wonder?
	The second problem is that even if this all was a principle of international law, there is nothing in the wording of the resolution to support the ] suggestion that in 1967 the Security Council viewed it as such and emphasised it on that basis. Indeed the problem JRH seems to have been trying to address is that a preambular reference would otherwise be regarded as merely an expression of the opinion of the Security Council:
	‘...clarified "inadmissibility" as principle of international law, so as not to be mistaken for a mere opinion of the UNSC’
	The result is a ], ] paragraph in which the views of others are passed of as the view of the Security Council at that time. I wouldn’t have thought such a misrepresentation have your support? --] (]) 23:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

			If I understand the preamble correctly, "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" means that the 1948 Arab-Israeli War did not change the Mandate boundaries. ] (]) 13:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	:Steve the talk page subsection above on the contents of The Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council cites the official published UN source which says that the preamble clause regarding the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war was an enunciation or affirmation of principles governing the settlement. You, NMMNG, and several sockpuppets have taken turns deleting citations to very well sourced neutral statements that represent published mainstream viewpoints from authorities like Michael Lynk, Paul De Waart, John Dugard, Enrico Milano, Stefan Talmon, Giuliana Capaldo, David Schweigman, Erika De Wet, Boleslaw Boczek, Jeremy Farrall, Yoram Dinstein and the primary UN organs speaking for themselves in the official UN legal publications about this principle of international law. I can document that with diffs and lengthy discussions from the tal page archive.

			== Introduction ==
	:FYI, The International Court of Justice explained that this is all a matter of longstanding customary international law:<blockquote><p>74. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which emphasized the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and called for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "Termination of al1 claims or states of belligerency".</p><p>87. The Court first recalls that, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter:"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." On 24 October 1973, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States" (hereinafter "resolution 2625 (X:YV)"), in which it emphasized that "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal." As the Court stated in its Judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), <b>the principles as to the use of force incorporated in the Charter reflect customary international law (see I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 98-1 01, paras. 187- 190); the same is true of its corollary entailing the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force.</b> -- Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf </p> </blockquote>

			The introduction doesn’t tell me what the resolution is actually about. ] (]) 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	:I cited a published analysis of that decision by De Waart, Paul J. I. M., "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 and an analysis in John Dugard, Recognition and the United Nations (1987) regarding the UN regime of non-recognition. I'm willing to open a ] case on this ] and ] trope you keep wrecklessly deploying here. If you think you can tag team and conceal the fact that 242 is citing a binding principle of international law in the preamable that governs the settlement, you are mistaken. ] (]) 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:43, 20 October 2024

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Egypt Mid‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / Cold War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

International relations: United Nations / Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 22, 2005, November 22, 2006, November 22, 2007, November 22, 2012, November 22, 2014, and November 22, 2017.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Useless Map

The "Map of territories occupied by Israel, Date 22 November 1967" accompanying this article makes no sense at all. It excludes the Sinai and it does not explain what the coloring means at all. Brasselimburg (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I came to say the same. It is extremely odd as the conquest of Sinai was a principal cause of international shock. Among other things the area is twice the size of Israel + Gaza + Golan Heights + West Bank and extended up to the Suez canal. There is a good map that is used for the the Six-Day War Israeli_occupation_of_the_Sinai_Peninsula articles. It makes sense to use it here as well.

I'm not sure how to get it to render in non-gigantic size, so I will just link it.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:6DayWarEnglish.png

Isak Rubin (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Snap! It's misleading because to put the resolution in context it needs to show the territories occupied to which the resolution's calling for de-occupation refers, the Sinai first. How can we change it? JonathanMeldrum1975 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also misleading because it misrepresents which territories were occupied.

Resolution 242 is absolutely explicit that conflict does not move international boundaries, so the Gaza Strip annexed by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were occupied territories reclaimed during the Six Day War.

Sinai and the Golan became territories occupied by Israel, and the resolution demands their return. AJRT1 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Love that "reclaimed". Sorry but your personal analysis is off-topic in addition to being wrong. Zero 10:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The link to the UN document in the infobox does not work. It returns a 404 error. Please replace it with a working link such as this one: https://undocs.org/S/RES/242(1967) FeetSupremacy (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Done M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential Vandalism

Looking through the list of Security Council nations in the box template, I noticed someone had replaced China's flag with Taiwan's. Pretty sure this is vandalism as the associated link leads to the article on Taiwan rather than the one on mainland China. CherryPigeon (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Preamble

If I understand the preamble correctly, "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" means that the 1948 Arab-Israeli War did not change the Mandate boundaries. AJRT1 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction doesn’t tell me what the resolution is actually about. 76.149.87.68 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: