Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Attempt To Get Back On Track

This RfC has kind of gone off the rails and i doubt any uninvolved editor is going to want to comment given the huge amount of text one would have to read to even get there. In fact, I don't think you can even discern what's going on here.

I'd suggest another section for people to state support or oppose and a brief statement of their position would be in order. Either that or re-organize what is there now as it started all in oppose, not it's all in support and can't be followed. --WGFinley (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors can see perfectly well what's going on here. Severely POV editors are wiki-lawyering to prevent the article being an accurate statement of Resolution 242. The UN and its constituent members, in frustration, was granting Israel the land it had seized in 1948 but drawing a line in the sand, it could not expect to annex any more. 86.181.228.168 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy edit to lede

I would remind everyone that the matter of the PLO's acceptance of resolution 242 as the basis for talks has been discussed, and a solution agreed upon, here:[1]

User:Jiujitsuguy has now inserted the word "belatedly" into the sentence, which poses the same problem that the word "finally" originally posed, which was agreed that the adverb should be removed for the reasons given. I welcome Jiujitsuguy to join the discussion. In the meantime, his edit, made without discussion, without a given rationale, and contrary to previous discussion and agreement on the talk page, should be reverted back to the discussed and agreed solution. His is edit-warring behavior, and I would request other editors and admins to enforce the general sanctions that exist on this topic,[2] including by banning users such as Jiujitsuguy who choose to edit-war rather than so much as even attempting to follow the procedures of dispute resolution, including by violating the spirit of 1RR. JRHammond (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the unsourced editorial comment. A better question would be when did the UN Security Council officially admit that 242 applied to the Palestinian people and their territory? After the 1974 Rabat Summit, the United States vetoed Security Council resolutions that would have recognized the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of their lands. Here for example are three from 1976 alone [3], [4], and [5] They were all based upon the Secretary General's Report on conclusions of The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. [6]

In the 1980's Arthur Goldberg wrote that "Of course, time works changes, and the Camp David Accords recognize that the rights of Palestinians will have to be recognized in a comprehensive peace settlement." See U.N. Resolution 242:origin, meaning, and significance [7] However, Israel refused to permit the PLO to participate in the Madrid Conference in 1991. The Palestinians participated as part of the delegation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (which had always accepted Security Council resolution 242). harlan (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Harlan. I don't agree it's a "better" question. It's separate question, equally important, but I don't want to address the one as an alternative to addressing the other we were discussing before, and which I've tried to address in my proposed edit, above. I would also note, with regard to the Madrid Conference, that the U.S. explicitly stated it would not recognize the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. That was one of the conditions of the "talks" the U.S. conceded to Israel. The U.S. position remained explicitly rejectionist until the Bush II administration, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know that under Clinton that rejectionism was ever reversed. Correct me if I'm wrong. And even under Bush II, it remained a rhetorical commitment to Palestinian statehood only, while the U.S.'s actual commitment, judged by deeds, not words, continued to remain explicitly rejectionist, as it does under Obama. But I digress. JRHammond (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued Discussion on Israel's Conditioned Acceptance of Resolution 242

To summarize, I have proposed, requested comment on, and gained support with no objections for the following addition to the lede:

During deliberations over Resolution 242 in the Security Council, delegates from member nations expressed their governments' understandings of the resolution.[8][9][10][11] The representative from India stated, "It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories--I repeat, all the territories occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967." Addressing the Israeli position on the draft resolution, he added, "This being so, Israel cannot use the words 'secure and recognized boundaries', contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict." Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war.[12][13][14][15] The Israelis had argued that resolution did not call for unconditional withdrawal,[16][17] and the Israeli ambassador to the U.N. responded to the Indian delegate by saying, "The establishment of a peace settlement, including secure and recognized boundaries, is quite different from what he had been proposing, namely, withdrawal, without final peace, to demarcation lines."[18]

However, I share concerns that this is overly lengthy and should be summarized, including by paraphrasing, into a more concise and briefer version before being implemented. I thus propose the following condensed version (with references in the proper places):

During deliberations over Resolution 242 at the Security Council, delegates from member nations expressed their governments' understanding of the text. The representative from India expressed his country's understanding that the proposed resolution committed Israel to a complete withdrawal from all the territories occupied during the war, and that Israel could not interpret the withdrawal clause as being conditioned upon the clause calling for the establishment of "secure and recognized boundaries". Numerous other delegates similarly expressed their understanding that the resolution called for a full withdrawal. Following the vote, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N. Abba Eban responded to the Indian delegate by repeating the Israeli interpretation that "The establishment of a peace settlement, including secure and recognized boundaries, is quite different from what he had been proposing, namely, withdrawal, without final peace, to demarcation lines."

JRHammond (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that Resolution 242 is quite different from the Indian draft resolution? Accredited (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the U.K. draft was quite different from the Indian draft. Why do you assume I wouldn't recognize that fact, and what is your point? JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

JRH, I told you that Israel never accepted the terms of resolution 242 and provided several secondary sources which explained that Eban said the inadmissibility norm was a doubtful Latin American doctrine during the Security Council discussions. In any case, he made an utterly false statement during the 1382nd session when he said "The policy of the Israel Government and nation remains as it was when I formulated it in the Security Council on 13 and 16 November [1375th and 1379th meetings], namely that we shall respect and fully maintain the situation embodied in the cease-fire agreements until it is succeeded by peace treaties between Israel and the Arab States ending the state of war"...& etc. Israel had already adopted illegal administrative and legislative measures aimed at altering the status of Jerusalem in violation of the inadmissibility principle.

If you would pause this discussion and look into the UN non-recognition regimes, and the ICJ legal analysis in the Wall case, you'll find that the "acceptance" of Security Council decisions by member states "ceased to be a topic of discussion after the Namibia case". The ICJ found that Israel began establishing settlements in East Jerusalem in 1967 concurrent with legislative and administrative actions designed to alter the status of the city in violation of its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions, including 242.

A number of theories were advanced based upon an article written by Rosalyn Higgins which established the legal distinction between acquisition of title to a territory and military occupation. Allan Gerson's "Trustee Occupant" and Yehuda Blum's "Missing Reversioner" both cited the Higgins article and were based upon the notion that Israel could occupy the territory indefinitely (but Jerusalem was no longer under a militry administration). Both men attempted to cast doubt upon the legality of the union between the central districts of Arab Palestine and Transjordan, despite the fact Israel had signed an armistice agreement with the resulting entity, Jordan.

Judge Higgins opinion in the Wall case pulled the rug out from under all of those theories by explaining the requirements of resolution 242 and the self-evident obligation of states after the Namibia case to bring illegal situations to an end. Israel is violating two peremptory norms of international law that are binding on both Israel and the Security Council, i.e. the self-determination of the Palestinians and the inadmissibility principle. Sidney A. Freifeld explained (see the link above) that resolution 242 did NOT vest Israel with the authority to administer the occupied territories until the Arab states of the region make a just and lasting peace. harlan (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I don't agree Israel never accepted 242. In spirit, yes, that's true, as I've already acknowledged. But nonetheless, they did CONDITIONALLY accept 242, on the basis of their own unilateral interpretation of it, which remained the after Israel accepted 242 as the basis for talks under the so-called "peace process", which explains and reconciles the otherwise apparent contradiction between their acceptance of 242 as the basis for talks while continuing to maintain an explicitly rejectionist position with regard to the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and continuing to refuse to withdraw. There was no contradiction, from the Israeli POV. I've read the ICJ decision on the wall. I don't see that it contradicts what I've just said. Of course "Israel is violating two peremptory norms of international law that are binding on both Israel and the Security Council, i.e. the self-determination of the Palestinians and the inadmissibility principle." Far be it from me to argue otherwise. That is perfectly non-controversial, I'm sure you'll agree. I'm not familiar with the Higgins, Gerson, or Blum writings you mentioned, but the points you raise from them are also perfectly in accordance with what I've just said. You say, "Sidney A. Freifeld explained (see the link above) that resolution 242 did NOT vest Israel with the authority to administer the occupied territories until the Arab states of the region make a just and lasting peace." Once again, we are talking past each other. Far be it from me to have ever suggested otherwise! On the contrary, I've repeatedly and vigorously made that same point myself. In sum, I think you've wholly misunderstood me and the point I was making in saying Israel conditionally accepted 242. I hope it's clearer now. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, I've considered further your point here. We're actually in full agreement, as I indicated above, but there's a point of semantics here I wish to further address. Yes, it's true to say that Israel rejects 242, and has never accepted it. But it's equally true to say that they accepted it on the basis of their own unilateral interpretation of it. If you assert the former in the article, it would never last. Other editors would point to statements from Israel such as the one currently existing in the lede on Israel's "acceptance" of 242, and remove any such statements. This is why I've chosen rather to choose the latter route and place Israel's "acceptance" into its proper context and explain the conditions upon which Israel claimed to have "accepted" 242. I hope that also helps clear things up further, as to where I'm coming from and my purpose here. JRHammond (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

JRH, the United Nations had already adopted resolutions condemning Israel's attempts to annex or appropriate the City of Jerusalem before it adopted resolution 242. The question that the General Assembly put to the ICJ in 2004 inquired about the legal consequences of Israel's actions "considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?" See para 66 on page 61 of 139 in the pdf file.[19] Judge Higgins noted the self-evident legal principle involved in bringing an end to an illegal situation after the Security Council makes a determination.

In order to determine the legal consequences of Israel's actions the Court needed to perform a brief legal analysis of the status of the territory concerned under the applicable law (beginning at paragraph 69 on page 63 of 139). From the outset, the ICJ had said that construction of the wall had to be placed in a more general context including implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (l967) and 338 (1973). See page 9 of 139 in the pdf file. The Court's legal analysis on that point is contained in paragraphs 74 and 75 (pdf file page 65 of 139), while a separate discussion of the related customary norms reflected in the Charter can be found in paragraphs 87 and 88 (pdf file page 75 of 139).

The Court's analysis regarding the implementation of 242 said:

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 all claims or states of belligerency".

75. From 1967 onwards, Israel took a number of measures in these territories aimed at changing the status of the City of Jerusalem. The Security Council, after recalling on a number of occasions "the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible", condemned those measures and, by resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, confirmed in the clearest possible terms that:

"all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status".

The minutes of the Security Council sessions in which resolutions 252 [20], 267 [21] and 298 [22] were adopted contain discussions about Israel's contempt for and non-compliance with the provisions of resolution 242. Those sessions were held at the request of the Arab states. Resolution 298 was introduced by the representative of Somalia who mentioned that Israel had "claimed" it accepted the principles contained in 242, while undermining the Jarring Mission by its actions in Jerusalem. WP:NPOV and WP:ARBPIA are pretty clear about including and fairly representing the published views of the parties to the conflict. harlan (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

These are Mr. Freifeld's words:

"That balance indeed implies that Israel not be required to withdraw until (b) is fulfilled, but 242 does not specify what Israel would or could do on the West Bank pending withdrawal." [23] Accredited (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to log in after checking Accredited's User Contributions - I've noticed that his only previous partaking is at an article on Banu Nadir, where, without knowing any details he seems to be making a niusance of himself. In particular, he is not threading his replies, and is even breaking up the replies of others. It's obvious he's not in the business of cooperation, in fact quite the reverse, he's here to stop a good article being built. Thatchum (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I respond to each issue on its own merit. Accredited (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Accredited, you have a history of making tedious deletions of well-sourced material from this article, while advancing far-fetched claims that the material is "irrational and clearly unreliable" or that some vague or evasively worded primary source "speaks for itself". You've taken on JRH for WP:PSTS policy violations that you, yourself, have routinely employed. One thing is certain, this article has been targeted by sockpuppets of topic banned users (e.g. User:NoCal100 and User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen). You and Authoritative have been blocked in the past for suspicion of sockpuppetry or tag-teaming. If you don't stop trying to exclude well-known opposing viewpoints then you will undoubtedly end up being blocked again. harlan (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you people please try to indent properly? It's hard to follow the conversation otherwise.
Anyway, I have no problem with the content of JRHammond second suggestion. Not sure why it should go in the lead though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, NMMNG. Glad to see progress being made. The reason it belongs in the lede is as I've already repeatedly explained, which is that the current lede has a brief discussion of Syria's acceptance of 242. A hidden comment made a reasonable point that Israel's acceptance/non-acceptance should also therefore be discussed. A statement follows that does discuss that issue, but it is from a year later, and no context is offered by which readers can understand what was actually being said (which was that this "acceptance" was conditioned upon Israel's own unilateral interpretation of 242; Harlan has repeatedly observed this is actually a rejection of 242, but that is really a matter of semantics -- his an my point remain the same, insofar as I can tell). I thus wanted to show what Israel's position was in 1967, from the beginning, which hasn't ever changed since, and also to correct the implications that Israel only adopted that position a year later and that this "acceptance" was actually an acceptance of the terms of 242, both of which implications are absolutely false. As this issue is already discussed in the lede, my proposed edit therefore belongs with that discussion. Otherwise, the entire existing discussion should be removed to the body. I'm fine with either solution. Which do you prefer? JRHammond (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the text, but that's not an issue since what we personally think stuff means is irrelevant.

The sources you're using are not an Israeli official "acceptance" of the resolution, and you can't use them to lead a reader to a conclusion that they are by putting them next to actual official "acceptances". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You've already approved the proposed edit. I was merely explaining why I think it belongs in the lede, so I don't see the relevance of your comment on that point. JRHammond (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the relevance is quite clear. If we're describing the discussion leading up to the vote, where the Indian delegate said something and the Israeli delegate responded with something else, that's fine. If we're using this text to try to lead the reader into understanding this is some kind of official "conditional" response, that's something completely different. If you put this in the lead surrounded by discussion about official responses to the actual voted upon resolution, you're doing the latter, not the former. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Eban's remark that Resolution 242 is quite different from the Indian draft in no way indicates conditional acceptance. Accredited (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Eban didn't remark that Resolution 242 is different from the Indian draft. He remarked that Israel's interpretation of the U.K. draft is different from India's interpretation of the U.K. draft. The Indian delegates remarks were about the U.K. draft, not about its own. JRHammond (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please thread your comments. JRHammond (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We have already discussed this. [24] Accredited (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Accredited per the MOS-WP:Lead, if the content is in the article, it can be summarized in the lead section. harlan (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Indian statement needs no repetition. As Lord Caradon said on Nov. 22, 1967: "All of us, no doubt, have our own views and interpretations and understandings. I explained my own when I spoke on Monday last. On these matters each delegation rightly speaks only for itself. Accredited (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy allows for the use of primary sources, but it calls for the majority of an article's content and analysis to be provided from reliable secondary sources. You and other editors have ignored the content guidelines in WP:EDITORIAL. The "quotefarm" has been connected into a narrative by inserting words such as nevertheless, but, however and although in order to imply relationships between two statements where none exists. In many instances full-blown unsourced arguments have been inserted between quotes. I'm going to remove all of those argumentative and inappropriate attempts to undermine or give undue precedence to primary sources unless they are cited to a reliable source.

Arthur Lall, Glenn Perry, Musa Mazzawi, and Sydney Bailey all relate the details of the last minute behind the scenes negotiations that took place between Caradon and the Indian delegate regarding this particular statement. Those meetings were also attended by the French and Nigerian delegates. The Indian delegate was deliberately repeating UK Foreign Minister George Brown's policy statements regarding full withdrawal so that Caradon could reaffirm them on the record. George Brown confirmed that himself in a 1978 interview. Arthur Lall described the position of Lord Caradon as one of "resolute adherence" to the principle of "complete withdrawal by Israel," along with that of the right of all states to exist.

Lord Caradon himself said that Israel was in clear defiance of resolution 242. He specifically cited the "annexation of East Jerusalem" and "the creeping colonialism on the West Bank and in Gaza and in the Golan." There is no doubt about that. For example, the official UK policy position on Jerusalem says "In 1967, Israel occupied E Jerusalem, which we continue to consider is under illegal military occupation by Israel."[25] Canada also has invoked non-recognition of the occupation "Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip)." [26] You aren't going to be able to prevent editors from including that information by simply claiming that some primary source speaks for itself. harlan (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Subsection on Non-Recognition Regimes and Peremptory Norms

I'm going to start a subsection of the article on the non-recognition regimes and the inadmissibility principle of customary international law. Rosalyn Higgins had already written extensively on "The Place of International Law in the Settlement of Disputes by the Security Council", 64 Am. J. Int'l L. 1 (1970) [27]

The resolution was based upon five principles outlined in a speech President Johnson delivered at the State Department. In the second point the President cited the UN Charter and stipulated that "no nation would be true to the United Nations Charter, or to its own true interests, if it should permit military success to blind it to the fact that its neighbors have rights and its neighbors have interests of their own. Each nation, therefore, must accept the right of others to live."[28]

In his analysis of resolution 242 Alexander Orakhelashvili noted that the ICJ has ruled that the Security Council is bound unconditionally by peremptory norms of international law reflected in the UN Charter. The ICJ found that the Israeli occupation is violating two of them with respect to (a) the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and (b) the inadmissibility of the establishment of settlements and other administrative and legislative measures taken to alter the status of East Jerusalem and the Arab occupied territories as a result of the war. The Court ruled that other states cannot assist or recognize those illegal situations and that Israel and other states have a legal obligation to bring them to an end. See Paul J.I.M. De Waart, 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, doi:10.1017/S0922156505002839

For decades Yehuda Blum and Allan Gerson advanced contradictory theories that obfuscated the issue. They failed to recognize the sovereignty of the existing states in the region including the political union between portions of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. Both men cited the Rosalyn Higgins journal article above which explained the distinction between acquisition of title and legitimate military occupation. The theories of Gerson and Blum ignored or discounted the Jericho Congress, the Jordanian national plebiscite, and the Jordanian Act of Union. See Gerson, Allan, Trustee-Occupant: The Legal Status of Israel's Presence in the West Bank, 14 Harv. Int'l. L. J. 1 (1973); Blum, Yehuda Z., UN Security Council resolution 242 and the Inadmissibility of Acquistion of Territory by War, page 858 in Moore, John Norton, The Arab Israeli Conflict Volume II, Readings, ASIL/Princeton University Press ISBN 069105648-X; and Blum, Yehuda Z. The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria, 3 Isr. L. Rev. 279 (1968) (also in Moore page 287)

Those theories became moot when Judge Higgins herself interpreted the original legal criteria in the Wall case:

This is not difficult - from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same - that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.

Judge Higgins also dismissed the idea that Israel could do as it pleases pending a final settlement:

That an illegal situation is not to be recognized or assisted by third parties is self-evident, requiring no invocation of the uncertain concept of "erga omnes". It follows from a finding of an unlawful situation by the Security Council, in accordance with Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter entails "decisions [that] are consequently binding on all States Members of the United Nations, which are thus under obligation to accept and carry them out" (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 1971, p. 53, para. 115)." [29]

Thomas Grant cited John Dugard, 'Recognition and the United Nations' regarding the UN regime of non-recognition. On page 113, Dugard said that the UN Security Council had based its call for non-recognition of Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem on UN Security Council resolution 242 and 478. See Dugard, John, Recognition and the United Nations, Grotius Publications (1987); Grant, Thomas D., East Timor, the U.N. System, and Enforcing Non-Recognition in International Law 33 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 273 (2000) The EU Foreeign Ministers reaffirmed that policy decision: "East Jerusalem is subject to the principles set out in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, notably the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and is therefore not under Israeli sovereignty." [30] harlan (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this before.

• There are no "regimes of non-recognition" according to your own sources.
• That you think certain reliable sources are incorrect is of no relevance here.
• Having a large section about peremptory norms would be UNDUE. You can summarize the Peremptory norm article though.
• Same goes for the inadmissibility principle, although that doesn't have an article yet. You could write one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes we been over this before: There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.

Thomas Grant says "This Article seeks to assess how the U.N. system has enforced regimes of non-recognition" and "II. The U.N. System and Non-Recognition - U.N.-sponsored rules of non-recognition up to 1987 were examined by John Dugard in Recognition and the United Nations under international law." Dugard wrote on page 113 of that book that the UN based its calls for non-recognition of Israel's attempts to alter the status of Jerusalem on SC resolution 242. You have attempted to impose your own interpretation of Grant's comments regarding enforcement by UN regional groups to say that there are no regimes of non-recognition, but Grant did not make any such claim.

The number of sources that discuss the inadmissibility principle as a unconditionally binding rule of law demands that it be covered in its own subsection. This article has subsections devoted to discussions of English vernacular that aren't even referenced to any rules of grammar. I don't see you deleting those, just well-sourced material from secondary sources regarding the application of the rules of customary international law in resolution 242.

Consensus is achieved through the editing process. You cannot object to the relevance of edits before they have been made. harlan (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you have already made these edits before and I wasn't the only one who objected to them. Here's the previous discussion [31] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the only editor in that thread who opposed the addition of the material. In the subsequent thread, Steve157 was discussing his own unpublished WP:OR 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. Secretary Rusk, Perry, McHugo, Lynk, Neff, and many other published sources say that simply was not the case. harlan (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support Harlan's recommendation. The information would need to be concisely presented and written, but it is absolutely and crucially relevant to the topic of Resolution 242. JRHammond (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Harlen for reasons stated by NMMNG--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG did not state any reasons that alter the Wikipedia five pillars requirement that all significant published viewpoints have to be included and fairly represented. The Israeli viewpoint is expressed by a vanishingly small minority including Eban, Blum, Gold, and Lapidot who say that the wording of a Chapter IV resolution can create a loophole in international law to Israel's benefit. The majority viewpoint expressed by authors like Higgins, Orakhelashvili, Dugard, McHugo, Lynk and a host of others say that jus cogens (peremptory norms of customary international law) are unconditionally binding on the Security Council and that those principles are not derogable or waivable by any method employed to interpret the language of resolution 242. The bulk of this article is devoted to the minority view that the rules of grammar can somehow override the rules of law.

In the United States, the rules of non-recognition that were adopted pursuant to the Kellogg-Briand pact, the Stimson Doctrine, and the UN Charter are codified in the applicable sections of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States regarding recognition or acceptance of states and governments. They provide that a state has a legal obligation not to recognize situations that result from a threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter. See §202(2) and §203(2) of the Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380, Volume 1, pages 77 and 84.

Ambassador Yost said that resolution 242 treated the entire Middle East situation, including Jerusalem, as a package. He said that Israel was bound by international law and that the US government had consistently refused to recognize the measures taken by Israel in that part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war. See John Norton Moore (ed.), The Arab-Israeli Conflict, NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton, Volume III, Documents [1974], pp. 993-994 and paras 93-98 of S/PV.1483 [32]. harlan (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct. NMMNG offered no legitimate rationale not to include this information in the article. On his 4 bullet points: (1) A dispute over wording on the Talk page -- as opposed to a dispute over wording of a proposed edit for the article -- is not a legitimate reason not to include said information. Exact wording can be discussed and consensus achieved. (2) A disagreement over reliability of sources is not a legitimate reason not to include said information. As NMMNG himself acknowledges, such personal opinions are irrelevant. Any proposed edit can and should adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, but as Harlan rightly notes these policies demand that "all significant published viewpoints have to be included and fairly represented". (3) NMMNG offers no rationale for why including this information would be "undue". It is directly relevant to Resolution 242. It is perfectly "due". (4) Same goes for inadmissibility principle. It is directly relevant to 242, and I'm not even aware of any such discussion of it that exists in the literature apart from 242. It is perfectly "due". JRHammond (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming harlan wants to add the same text he did last time. The previous discussion was about actual text added to the article. If it's something new, we can discuss that.

As for issues of due weight, as I've told harlan several times over the years, a short discussion about non-recognition or the inadmissibility principle can certainly go in this article, but he wants paragraphs and paragraphs about them. That would be UNDUE. Would you agree that this is not the place to do into in-depth analysis of the inadmissibility principle in international law? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, this article does not restrict itself to a short discussion of the view that resolution 242 is merely a hortatory English or French essay that allows Israel to occupy or unilaterally retain territory. It would be hard to give undue weight to a peremptory norm of international law. By definition, they put an end to or preclude a right of action, debate, or delay.

I've pointed out on several occasions that no one needs permission in order to add sourced information to this article. The majority published viewpoint is that Security Council resolutions contain the procedural and substantive decisions of an international treaty body which is unconditionally bound by peremptory norms of international law. Resolution 242 has been incorporated into multilateral international agreements including the Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords, the Quartet Roadmap, and various non-recognition regimes. There are a plethora of sources that need to be discussed in all of those contexts. harlan (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think the section about the English vs French is good, it is something that is specific to this resolution and this article is the right place (and one of if not the only place) to discuss it. I have suggested many times that we clean up and reorganize this article. You were not interested. The inadmissibility principle on the other hand, while relevant to this article is not specific to the topic and this is not the place to go into an in-depth discussion about it. There should be an explanation of what it is, which ideally would be a summary of an article that discusses it in depth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says that any notable controversies should be mentioned in the lead. The UN-sponsored rules of non-recognition were examined by John Dugard in Recognition and the United Nations. Dugard said that the UN based its call for non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem on this particular resolution. The statement on that subject from the EU Ministers illustrates the unique connection between the inadmissibility principle and this particular resolution "East Jerusalem is subject to the principles set out in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, notably the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and is therefore not under Israeli sovereignty."[33]

Every UN Security Council resolution is published in multiple official languages. Grammatical differences between a French and English text are hardly unique to this particular resolution. US Secretary of State Rusk and UK Foreign Minister Brown were the responsible English speaking cabinet officials tasked with negotiating and drafting a resolution. They both said that the French version was equally authentic and legitimate in this particular instance.

• Sydney Bailey says that Mr. Eban interpreted the inadmissibility clause to require an unconditional withdrawal.[34]
• Bailey, Lynk, the FRUS, and the verbatim Security Council record say that Israeli Foreign Ministry officials, Eban and Bitan, challenged the inclusion and the applicability of the inadmissibility principle because it prejudiced Israel's position. See Bailey [35]; Lynk page 6 [36]; the FRUS, Middle East Crisis, 1967, Document 420, paragraphs 7 & 8 [37]; and S/PV.1375 (OR) paragraph 49 [38]
• The FRUS and Rusk said that the US never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war, and that the US and the Israelis remain sharply divided on that issue. Secretary Rusk explained to Mr Eban that US support for secure permanent frontiers did not mean the US supported territorial changes. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, Document 487 [39] Under Secretary Katzenback told Israeli Ambassador Rabin that a peace settlement involving territorial acquisitions by Israel in the Sinai and West Bank was a position the US could not support. He explained that the US only contemplated minor adjustments, with compensation, in the pre-June 1967 lines with Jordan. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XX, Arab-Israeli Dispute, Document 320.[40]
• Brown and Caradon made similar statements. Brown told the Israelis that the differences between the French and English versions of the text would give them something to argue about later on.
• The article contains an inordinate amount of material derived from CAMERA and the MFA. That material attempts to cast doubt on US or UK policy in order to conceal the true nature of the dispute between the parties. CAMERA and the MFA are only reliable sources of information for their own views, but are not reliable sources of information on US or UK policy. Most of the material in the quote farm originally came from those two sources. Many of the quotes had been deliberately truncated to remove references to the criteria for withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces. Those quotes are completely redundant now, and they need to be removed. harlan (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Secure and recognised boundaries

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”: [41]

"In 242 recognised boundaries can only be defined by agreement so they cannot be imposed unilaterally and that includes the green line." Steve157 (talk) September 2009

And here is your WP:OR description of my position seemingly suggesting just the opposite:

"...In the subsequent thread, Steve157 was discussing his own unpublished WP:OR 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...harlan (talk) 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.--Steve157 (talk) 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:

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

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. harlan (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Harlan. Try Sharon Korman, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1996. She has written a whole book about the principle in question and is a strong advocate of the view that the acquisition of territory by force is always inadmissible. Yet on p211 she specifically references a withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries defined by agreement:

Yet Resolution 242, while proclaiming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, at the same time calls for a settlement which appears to envisage at least minor acquisitions of territory by Israel. Thus, paragraph 1(i) of the operative part of the Resoution, which calls for ‘[w]ithdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict’, does not call upon Israel to withdraw from all territories occupied in the June 1967 War;85 and paragraph 1(ii), which affirms the right of every state in the area to live within ‘secure and recognized boundaries’, also appears to leave open the possibility of legitimate territorial change by suggesting that Israel would be required to withdraw only to such boundaries as are secure and recognized...

Steve157 (talk) 12:42, 29 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' [42] 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".[43] 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 UN.org. 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, UN.org. 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)". See Note 2 on page 1 of Sup. 6, vol. 3, Article 24. harlan (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. What exact text are you proposing to add to the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 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 Resolutions subsection of the United Nations Security Council article and the United Nations Security Council resolution 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;" harlan (talk) 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? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 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 Wikipedia. nableezy - 02:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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. nableezy - 13:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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 WP:RS to say what they report on, with "according to". so you gave no reason for removing proper reference information except WP:DONTLIKE. LibiBamizrach (talk) 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. WP:ILIKEIT 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. nableezy - 14:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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? LibiBamizrach (talk) 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 Wikipedia article. nableezy - 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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. LibiBamizrach (talk) 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? nableezy - 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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 WP:CENSOR thing that you WP:DONTLIKE. 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? LibiBamizrach (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You really should read the things you link to. Nobody is "censoring" anything and nobody who had read WP:CENSOR 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 WP:RS and does not meet the requirements of WP:SPS. 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. nableezy - 15:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(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. harlan (talk) 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 ... --Shuki (talk) 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. Sol (talk) 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 [44] 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. [45] Those rules were in force until the 5th revision entered into effect in 1969. [46] 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:

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. ...

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.

(cited in Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict, by Musa E. Mazzawi, page 209 [47])

"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. harlan (talk) 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. nableezy - 19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN

I've opened a thread at WP:RSN on CAMERA and an Alex Safian article. [48] harlan (talk) 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? Sol (talk) 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. --Shuki (talk) 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? Sol (talk) 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 Wikipedia policy on identifying Questionable sources and WP:SOURCES. 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. WP:ELNO 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 WP:RS in the first place. harlan (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The material that I removed from the article was authored by Alex Safian. The discussion at WP:RSN 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. harlan (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Gerson Gorenburg

I've posted a new subsection at WP:RSN 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 Wikipedia 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. harlan (talk) 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 this article 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? --WGFinley (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia article discuss that practice and take serious exception with it, i.e. it is a notable subtopic.

Several years ago Gershom Goernberg cited an example ([49] and [50]) 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.[51] 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. [52] In the WP:RSN 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.

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".[53] 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.[54], not on the full text of the policy positions contain in Caradon's Georgetown essay.

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. harlan (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article.     ←   ZScarpia   09:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If they trim quotes that is easily fixed with the correct quotes from reliable secondary sources. --WGFinley (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The full quotes show that CAMERA's argument is invalid and a misrepresentation. Why, then, continue to detail what CAMERA says?     ←   ZScarpia   11:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Preambular references

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 WP:OR 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 WP:SYNTH 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 WP:SYNTH, WP:OR 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? --Steve157 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2010 (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.

FYI, The International Court of Justice explained that this is all a matter of longstanding customary international law:

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".

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), 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. -- Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

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 WP:AE case on this WP:OR and WP:Synth 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. harlan (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

UN Resolution 1515

I think it is important to make it clear that UN Resolution 242 was recalled by UN Resolution 1515, in the article there is no clear declaration of this fact. Silver163 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What kind of edit do you have in mind? --Dailycare (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically just putting at the top that it was recalled or adding a new section saying it was recalled. Silver163 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can this be done? I haven't received back any responses. Silver163 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the lead, but you could make a section with a list of all the resolutions that recall this one (there are a few) if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Flag Icon

I'm no UN scholar, but at first glance the icon for the Chinese flag appears to be incorrectly designated and linked (to the flag and page for Taiwan). Was Taiwan and not China actually a member of the permanent security council when this was passed? That seems very odd to me. Feel free to delete this if I'm just uninformed. Dhicks3 (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Read this for the whole story. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Implementation

The Implementation sections in the article seems to be a summary of the lead and not the other way around.--Mor2 (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Preamble - again

Mor2 I am not sure if your last comment was directed at me (I assume it was) or precisely what you meant.

I am happy with all of the changes we agreed. However, I don't really get what you mean with your new ″provides″ wording as in "The Resolution preamble provides:" My understanding is that provisions are made in the operative paragraphs NOT in the preamble. But if you are keen on this wording I am happy to discuss it further.

My objection to your previous wording was the reference to "exact" in: "The exact meaning of the Resolution preamble is debated". Its not the "exact" meaning its the whole significance and interpretation of that reference in particular. Your use of the word "provides" confirms my point that your view of what a preamble is and does and mine are completely different. If you wanted to say something along the lines of:

The interpretation and significance of the following preambular reference is disputed:

I would be happy with that.

Talking of that dispute. I have no problem with McHugo and Lynk when they say that there is no right of conquest. I just don't agree when they try to equate a withdrawal to secure and recognised boundaries freely agreed as part of a negotiated settlement, with a right of conquest. Of course I understand why so many want to do avoid negotiations prior to withdrawal by doing so, but I don't see how doing so can be squared with the text of the Resolution the Security Council passed under Chapter VI. Steve157 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm the editor that put "provides" in that spot, I figured the preamble is a preambular provision or statement, I'm probably happy with an alternative wording should someone suggest one. Dictionary.com defines "provision" as a "a clause in a legal instrument". --Dailycare (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mor2 did the 07:51 edit that restored that wording. I didn't look to see who used that wording first. My understanding is that the legally binding decisions of a Security Council Resolution if any are in the operative paragraphs. I'll make the suggested change if no one objects. Steve157 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As I noted before the intention of the edit was to add "the quote which the subject of discussion to the preamble section" I don't care about what wording you guys choose.(pick one and edit it in) I copy/pasted Dailycare variant from history because you both had issue with "debated".

P.s. To clarify my "last comment" [55] was about edit #7 - changes to the lead [56] and your reply [57] --Mor2 (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If the suggested change is "The interpretation and significance of the following preambular reference is disputed", then my question would be why the dispute needs to be mentioned so prominently, do sources really consider that the main feature of the preamble? If the suggested change is something else, I'd like to know what the suggested change is. An alternative suggestion could be simply "The preamble states:" followed by the statement and the views on it, wherein the views are given weight according to their prevalence in sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO "The preamble states:" its exactly what it should say. When/if I get to suggesting changes to the preamble, we will discuss other variants.--Mor2 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would happy with that if we include the whole preamble or if we instead say "The second preambular reference states" and lose "The Security Council...". Steve157 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with the "second preambular reference states" suggestion. OTOH if we have sources that say the second reference is by far the most discussed one, we could have the simpler "the preamble states" but that sounds like another discussion. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll go with that and avoid the discussion. Mor2 seems unconcerned about this if I understand his position correctly. Steve157 (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

lead (again)

Regarding the proposed changes to the lead [58]

It removes the 'preamble' and the first 'Operative' Paragraphs from the lead, which are carbon copy of of the resolution text. I see no reason to put most of the resolution in the lead, we already have links to the official document, wikisource and quotes in the article sections. Besides the lead should provide a summary of the article, while those carbon copy quotes does the opposite by confusing the reader.

Additional it copied the first paragraph from the 'context' section, which provides background and context to the resolution, as well as a summary of its principles. Plus a minor copy edit.--Mor2 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit to the lead, or are you discussing the diff in general? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as before, this is my suggestion and the reasoning behind it. If you have objections or suggestion for improvement please voice them out.--Mor2 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that the text is verbatim in the lead because it has not been possible to get consensus around a summary. The summary you have proposed is no good for the lead, because it doesn't provide an explanation of the contents, it just indicates the existence of the various paragraphs (i.e. referring to "the withdrawal clause" or "freedom of navigation" as if the specifics have already been explained). Formerip (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note that your arguments holds the same for the current selective excerpts from the resolution. Furthermore the lead shouldn't explain anything, only provide a quick summary and IMO withdrawal clause summaries this whole paragraph on both of its clauses perfectly and neutrally, until the issue expanded in detail in its own section. So unless you suggest that we should remove the excerpts without a summary, can you suggest a better summary? --Mor2 (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, do you have sources that refer to the clause as a "withdrawal clause"? This one says "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and goes on to say the specific wording is "famous". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Before posting please take care to check if your suggestion actually provide a summary of the relevant paragraph. As it is your suggestion drops the second clause and provide only the first, as such it violates WP:NPOV. If you have a suggestion the summarize that whole paragraph lets hear it, otherwise they both go.(or maybe we can be presented them in a full text section, as other articles do).--Mor2 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You're the editor suggesting a change to the text, not me. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Mor2, Its hard to take the changes you are proposing seriously if you don't even describe them accurately. You state that: "Additional it copied the first paragraph from the 'context' section...". But here is the context section you copied from:

The resolution deals with five principles; withdrawal of Israeli forces, 'peace within secure and recognized boundaries', freedom of navigation, a just settlement of the refugee problem and security measures including demilitarized zones. It also provided for the appointment of a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East in order to promote agreement on a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the principles outlined in the resolution.

And here is the completely different statement you claim is a "copy":

The resolution deals with five principles; 'inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war', the withdrawal clause, freedom of navigation, a just settlement of the refugee problem and security measures including demilitarized zones. It also provided for the appointment of a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East in order to promote agreement on a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the principles outlined in the resolution.

Can you not see any differences? Steve157 (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Dailycare, I didn't implied otherwise, only tried to engage in discussion, to see what we can come up with. Also there are two parts to the edit the removal of the inadequate text for the lead and a suggestion for paragraph that actually would be informative by providing a summary of the issues dealt in the article.

@Steve157, this is the third time I formulate this for your convenience.. so you'll have to be patient as well and try to be constructive. As for ~your question the change that were introduced are the inclusion of the principle noted in the second preamble that was omitted and presenting the operative paragraph that deals with withdrawal, as it dealt in the article as one principle rather than two and put them all in order. Couple of points, I couldn't find a shorter name for the 'inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war' and I used 'withdrawal clause' instead of 'land for peace' which is in the article, also I am not certain that the word principle is the best choice here, but I leave this for your expertise.(p.s. would you accept the carbon copy variant?)--Mor2 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mor2 Pretending you were not making the changes you were isn't in any way convenient for me. I no longer assume you to be acting in good faith. I will for now assume no faith despite the fact that I cannot find any section in the article in which 'withdrawal clause' is taken to refer both to Israeli withdrawal and to 'peace within secure and recognised boundaries' as you assert. Please note that the text of the resolution you deleted from the lead as unnecessary explicitly asserts that both principles apply including the one you deleted from the summary you put in its place! Steve157 (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve157, re-posting this issues, after you neglected it above. Including dif(so you can see the changes) + reasoning behind it, pointing issues that might be contentious, looking for consensus/discussion and dealing with less than constructive questions and accusations of not acting in good faith, is in no way convenient for me. Now that this is out of the way, regarding your reservations: above I specifically pointed out that I used 'withdrawal clause' instead of 'land for peace', which is the only section in the article that specifically deals with the first operative paragraph as whole(or otherwise) and it has one single main article. I prefered the name 'withdrawal clause' because 'land for peace' is not specifically spelled out in the resolution text and can be construed as interpretation, while withdrawal clause seems more neutral, since both of its section deals with withdrawal and its goals. As before objections or suggestion for improvement are appreciated.--Mor2 (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, frankly you're beating a dead horse. We have sources that say the actual wording of the clause is famous and significant, there is absolutely no way you can replace it with something as vague as "withdrawal clause", since that's not what the sources say. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to provide a source that covers the first operative paragraph.(not part of it) In either case I am fine with just a removal.--Mor2 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy according to which entire paragraphs have to be sourced to the same source. What removal are you talking about, are you suggesting that something would be removed? If so, what? Cheers,--Dailycare (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly you're stone walling. The removal is the first thing that was outlined in this section("It removes the.." or later "there are two parts to the edit, the removal of the inadequate text for the lead and a suggestion for.."). While the rest are strawmen arguments e.g. no one claimed that the text is not "famous and significant" and we are not replacing or changing them in the article, but making sure that the lead provides a summary of it. Just the same your policy argument is irrelevant, it has nothing todo with being sourced to same source(?), but with your claim that there sources supporting your position. You didn't like my summary of the first operative paragraph, claiming its too vague, but so far the only source your provided and your variants wasn't summaries and only addressed one part of the paragraph(which also violates WP:NPOV)--Mor2 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, by "removal" you're suggesting we'd just remove from the lead mention of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and withdrawal of Israeli forces. Please correct me if this understanding is incorrect. Do you feel those aren't key aspects of the resolution, as represented in reliable sources? Have you, by the way, read any sources that relate to resolution 242? WP:LEAD says, in the lead, if you'll allow the slight pun, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". --Dailycare (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

By removal I suggest removing the carbon copy resolution text from the lead(reasons above). If we can agree on a summary of the article to put there it will be nice, but the lead will stand on its own without it.--Mor2 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Mor2 none of the reasons you give for the deletions in edit 7 are valid. The fact that a quotation is a “carbon copy” of its source isn’t a flaw or a reason to delete it. That’s the whole idea of a quotation! Your claim that the quotes you removed were most of the text of the resolution is untrue. But even if it were true, it wouldn’t be a reason for deletion on its own. Your claim that the Security Council’s text is inadequate is an unsubstantiated POV which I don’t share and even if true not a reason for deleting it from the lead. Your claim that the text you are removing is confusing is refuted by Lord Caradon who asserted that we (the Security Council) regard the meaning as clear. So that claim is also unsubstantiated. The only point you make that IMO does have merit is that it would be nice to summarise the article in the lead. The reason that hasn’t been done is that as FormerIP suggests it’s been impossible to agree a stable summary. Your dissatisfaction with the pre-existing summary and decision to take it upon yourself to make a whole series of edits some of them obviously controversial without prior consultation, are the perfect demonstration of why there has been this problem. So in that respect you are your proposals own worst enemy. The longer you persist in trying to justify these deletions the worse it gets, because it looks obviously bad faith to remove from the lead text of the resolution that explicitly contradicts the summary you wish to put in its place.Steve157 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Section 4

I've done some minor (i.e. non-substantive) editing on the section currently called "The negotiating and drafting process." I think the section should be re-titled "The U.S. position" since that is mostly what it's about. The sub-heading "U.S. position" could then be removed, though the material would remain. (That sub-heading had been "Foreign Relations of the U.S.," which referred to a source (State Dept's FRUS series vol. 19) rather than the substance.) Before changing the title of the section I thought I'd post this to see if anyone has any comments on the matter.Redound (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps better to call the section "U.S. and British Positions" since it also contains quotes from the Br. For. Sec. in '67 and the resolution's author, Lord Caradon. The basic problem is that the whole section is not well-organized, but I'm not sure how to fix that.Redound (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, to call the section badly organized is an understatement. It's a mess. There is a quote from a Prof. Lapidoth, followed by quotes from Kissinger's memoirs, then from various other previous secretaries of state, then from the British sources, then the material about what Goldberg said to whom in '67. It seems to have been almost randomly strung or thrown together, with no attention to chronology, and whatever main points there are here tend to vanish in the confused jumble of quotes.Redound (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Why invoke the famous "McHugo" obfuscation? This is Not like the US Supreme Court where we need someone to INFER intent from 200 Years earlier. We Have the Intent Of the Drafters of the Res. No Caradon? !? - -

Lord Caradon, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to UN: -

• "We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did Not put the 'THE' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately..* - -

We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever." --- MacNeil/Lehrer Report - March 30, 1978 -

-

"..Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in Feb 1973: - Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?" - - Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. - - -

• It was NOT for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is NOT a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is Not a permanent boundary... *

- -

Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law/Public Affairs, Yale University.. 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs: - -

- 

a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and Not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. - -

• Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by Inserting the word 'THE' FAILED in the Security Council.*

It is, therefore, Not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." - - *

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.126.34 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you'd perhaps better start a new thread about this. However, the points you raise aren't new as such, the missing article has been discussed at length. It's true it isn't in the English text, and Resolution 242 allows minor revision of the border as long as Israel doesn't become larger as a result, since the principle referred to above makes plain the inadmissibility of territorial aggrandizement through war. So minor revision, yes, enlargement, no. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mor2 You have made major changes to this article scraping sections that have been stable for a very long time after considerable controversy. Please may I revert them and then we can discuss and agree changes here. Steve157 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare I think the wording you reverted had been stable since 2010. See the tail end of the discussion in the section above on preambular references. The preamble also contains: "Emphasizing further that all Member States..." so to imply that the preamble emphasizes one but not the other is an interpretation of the Security Council's priorities not reflected in the text. Steve157 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Steve157 Going from the bottom up(post your objection under each point). --Mor2 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Can you explain what is your objection with this edit[59]

This passage has long needed improving so it was a good place to start. The importance of 242 is that it was the most widely agreed and affirmed basis for a settlement. Its weakness has been the extreme level of disagreement about what that basis is. The current wording is: Resolution 242 is one of the most commonly referred UN resolutions to end the Arab–Israeli conflict, and the basis of later negotiations between the parties. How about something along the lines of:

Resolution 242 is one of the most widely affirmed resolutions on the Arab–Israeli conflict, and formed the basis for later negotiations between the parties.

There is a lot more to say but this is only the lead not the body so mentioning which negotiations goes too far in my view. Shall we do these one at a time? Steve157 (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to the use of "widely affirmed", but I think that including the major agreements that are based on it and later referenced in the article, make the lead more informational and adds credibility to the 'widely affirmed' part.--Mor2 (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad we agree on the wording above. Mentioning subsequent negotiations does go too far. First, your rationale is backwards. Being widely affirmed is what helped lead to the negotiations and eventually agreements. It was not the other way round. Both the wide affirmations and the resultant agreements are facts that don't need credibility. Also this all took decades. Second, there is a lot of information in the lead that has been very difficult to have established, such as who accepted the resolution and who rejected it, on what basis and when. Much of that "ground work" happened in the late 1960's and in the 70's, whereas the first agreement, Egypt - Israel was at the end of the 1970's. Furthermore many of the "parties" regarded that agreement as treacherous (plenty of people still do) and disputed the relationship between the treaty and the "correct" interpretation of this resolution. So I think that the wording proposed says most of what can be said without controversy and should be said in sequence at this point in the lead.

Steve157 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The operative word was 'add' to, not 'establish'. There is a big difference between being widely affirmed and being wieldly affirmed by the parties involved. Its those agreements by the involved states, that lend to the resolution notability the most, not its wide affirmation(there are many wieldly affirmed resolution that amounted to nothing). With that in mind, we would get:

"Resolution 242 is one of the most widely affirmed resolutions on the Arab–Israeli conflict, and formed the basis for later negotiations between the parties. Including the Peace Treaties between Israel and Egypt(1979) and Jordan (1994), as well as the 1993 and 1995 agreements with the Palestinians."

And I don't see any hidden implication, controversy or suggestions as to the "correct" formula, just that those agreements are based(vague) upon it.--Mor2 (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll go with that wording with one slight change. Instead of "Including Peace Treaties..." how about "These lead to Peace Treaties..."

I assume you will agree so I will make the change now. If not we can then discuss it further or if you are happy go onto the next one. Steve157 (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)*

Looks good to me, please continue to the next issue/s.--Mor2 (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit [60],

As you surmised I don't have a strong objection to restoring a link to a more original text of the Resolution including the English and French versions. The current link is more accessible but the layout without indentation is inferior. I would reference both personally, but I leave it to you. Steve157 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

this [61] and this [62](minus Dailycare cahnge).

Those edits are mostly technical. The first, changed the link to the official UN Database and added a link to wikisource. The second, place the 'Preamble', 'Land for peace' and 'Settlement of the refugee problem' sections, that provide interpretation of specific articles in the resolution under content(leaving place to expand on the rest) and place the wikisource template there to allow quick access to resolution text. lastly, adding the quote which the subject of discussion to the preamble section(note that Dailycare removed "debated", to which I have no objection at this point) --Mor2 (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem with 3. However 4, the statement: "The exact meaning of the Resolution preamble is debated" is firstly a massive understatement and second wrong in many senses. For instance the whole role of the preamble in relation to the operative paragraphs is disputed, not some exact meaning. Some ignore the operative parts completely and quote the inadmissibility principle in isolation. Some regard the inadmissibility principle as a binding principle in international law and dispute your later non binding assertion about Chapter VI. And we haven't even got onto how the inadmissibility principle should be interpreted. The implication that there is only one phrase of any importance in the preamble is just plain wrong, and a fundamentally flawed approach to interpretation. I could go on and on but this seems so wide of the mark its hard to know where to start. Steve157 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here, like I said, note Dailycare change[63]. When I wrote it, I was thinking of another argument that I haven't added yet, so in the meantime I have no problem with Dailycare formulation.--Mor2 (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I do but if you find a reputable source making the point you are making - and I am not sure what that is - we can debate it further. Steve157 (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• This edit [64]

Added a link to the charter and the specific chapter in it, as well as expanding on what is generally agreed that resolutions under Chapter VI means.(bolded part), in an attempt to make this section more informational. --Mor2 (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In my experience almost nothing impacting this resolution is generally agreed. This may be less contentious than it was a few years back (or maybe not) but unless you have an authoritative source saying this is now generally agreed I wouldn't support the statement's inclusion. Surprisingly the interpretation of UNSC Resolutions isn't codified and the legal types attempting to rectify that tend to take the view that the UNSC's autonomy needs to be (or is) constrained by preemptory norms of international law. That's the line of argument used in the Preambular references section above. Whether constraining the SC in that way is in accordance with the UN Charter is open to question, but your understanding has certainly been questioned in the past. Hence the need for an authoritative source. I don't doubt that Ch VI was generally regarded as non binding in '67 but I never found a source to attest to this as fact. Steve157 (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I was quoting from the article I referred you to:

Collective Insecurity, Harvard International Review,"Chapter VI establishes the appropriate methods of settling international disputes and the Security Council's powers in relation to them. It is generally agreed that resolutions under Chapter VI are advisory rather than binding. These resolutions have generally been operative only with the consent of all parties involved. Traditionally, the Chapter has not been interpreted to support collective intervention by member states in the affairs of another member state"

--Mor2 (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Havard reference doesn't mention 242. Generally agreed doesn't equal generally agreed in 242. If you wanted to state that this is generally agreed in the lead then I think you need a reference specific to 242. In fact your wording stated that it was advisory rather than binding as if that were accepted fact. That wording was considerably stronger than you claiming its generally agreed in 242! Steve157 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• This edit [65]

I presume it has given you most concern.(In retrospect, I probably should have broken it down into three parts). I removed the 'preamble' and the first 'Operative' Paragraphs from the lead, because they are carbon copy, that amount to half of the resolution text, which is unnecessary since we already have links to the official document, wikisource and quotes in the article. Furthermore the lead should provide a summary of the article, which they obviously don't and considering that this huge article deals with the nuances of those paragraphs, without proper context they are confusing or uninformative at best.

Next, I copied the first paragraph from the 'context' section, which provides background and context to the resolution, as well as a summary of its principles. Plus a minor copy edit.--Mor2 (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning this latest edit, I'm not comfortable with the "it was hoped" language, it seems unsourced and implies the resolution failed in some way. I'm also at a loss as to why the "emphasis" on inadmissibility of territorial gain is removed, per WP:LEAD key points should be mentioned and I don't see reasons to consider this anything but a key point. Also "the withdrawal clause" is a bit vague and presupposes the reader knows what withdrawal this is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You already addressed the first point yourself [66]. The second point, was address by Steve157 [67] and I tend to agree. Lastly, I think that 'withdrawal clause' sums up the principles of the first operative article and both of its articles in a neutral way, do you have an alternative suggestion?--Mor2 (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We could say e.g. "withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the conflict", which described who should withdraw and from where. I'm also fine with the current wording. --Dailycare (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

First I am totally against the idea of deleting the references from the text of the resolution. The reason I regard them as essential is because the text is the only thing that everyone agrees on and its the only thing the Security Council agreed on. Getting the two most contentious sections of that text out there in some sort of appropriately neutral context is therefore of fundamental importance in my view. Dailycare, I am not clear on what you don't get about my objection to "emphasizes". Perhaps it would help if I knew what you understand it means when the SC starts a preambular reference with the word Emphasizing in general and in particular in front of the phrase I term the inadmissibility principle. Does it for instance mean something different from what is meant in the next line starting with Emphasizing further?. And if it doesn't, then doesn't that mean that you are deciding which of the two to emphasize and passing that decision off as the Security Council's? Indeed isn't the fact that we refer to one of these phrases but not the other and that we do so before we mention the operative phrases, emphasis enough if not undue emphasis? Steve157 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Steve, I wasn't disagreeing with your use of "emphasize", rather I was disagreeing with the notion of removing "emphasizing" from the lead entirely, as in this version. For the record, I think it's a fine idea to mention both emphasized points and indeed better than having just one of them. --Dailycare (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dailycare if we add more and more text from the resolution in the lead then we have two problems. First the more we add the more we need to add to keep it neutral. You can't have half the preamble and so little of the operative paragraphs. This is a serious problem because ideally the resolution needs to be taken as a """whole""" according to Caradon addressing the SC just before its passage. My second objection is that the preamble and operative parts of the resolution play different roles and so do the principles within them. You seem to be suggesting changes as if there's no distinction? Steve157 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve, I must at this point admit that I'm not quite clear on which specific edit we're discussing. I probably should have invested more time in following this discussion, I don't mean to imply that you would have expressed yourself unclearly. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, Mor2, Dailycare. Lets end these simultaneous comments and if required start a new section on any proposed changes from the current text. Steve157 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I already explained my changes and I don't find your disparagement to removal of the quotes due to them being "the only thing that everyone agrees" as a valid reason.--Mor2 (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Questioning an old edit

In this edit, an IP editor removed a small section that was linked from another article. No edit summary was given. The question is, should we perhaps restore this section? And if not, is this issue dealt with elsewhere in this article? Debresser (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there is currently content in this article that relates to the semantic dispute e.g. where the French version of the text is discussed. --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that that section does not discuss the same dispute as the one that was removed. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference unavailable

Hey,

the link in this reference doesn't lead to the article (any more). It seems that it has been moved or deleted. However, you get redirected to the main page (http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/)134.61.98.214 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried to find an archived version of it, but unsuccessfully. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100213155049/http://thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5512 to http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5512

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)