Israel Matzav

New study proves conclusively UN didn't intend to force Israel back to '49 armistice lines

Draftsman Eugene Rostow argued for years that UN Security Council Resolution 242 was not intended to force Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines. Now, in an upcoming article in the Chicago Journal of International Law, Northwestern University Professor Eugene Kontorovich proves by comparing 242 with five other Security Council resolutions that dealt with territorial withdrawals that Rostow was right: The Security Council never intended to try to force Israel to withdraw to the '49 armistice lines and never intended to make 'settlements' illegal.

Kontorovich cites five pre-167 UN withdrawal resolutions obligating withdrawals of: the USSR from Iran in 1946, the parties to the Israeli-Arab 1948 war to withdraw to positions held on October 14 in 1948, North Korea to withdraw from South Korea to the 38th parallel in 1950, Belgium to withdraw from Congo in 1960 and India-Pakistan to withdraw to August 5 positions in 1965, as decisive in explaining the resolution.

He writes that the USSR had to withdraw from "the whole" of Iran, that Belgium had to withdraw from "the territory" (whereas 242 is missing the definite article "the") of Congo and that the other three resolutions give definitive dates or markers for withdrawal.

In contrast, Kontorovich writes that 242 intentional dropping of "the" and leaving out of a set date or geographic marker shows that the UN intentionally left the issue vague – which he argues could be a decisive proof for the pro-Israel reading of the resolution that Israel only has to withdraw from some territories as agreed in negotiations.

Next, the article cites 13 more territorial withdrawal resolutions post-1967 running all the way up to a 2012 resolution ordering Sudan and South Sudan to withdraw to their set borders where the word "the" appears five times, signifying an obligation of a complete withdrawal, and the other resolutions also appear to signal a full withdrawal.

Former UN Ambassador and Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs Director Dore Gold responded to the article saying, "Unfortunately there are voices that believe the whole discussion of the absence of the definite article 'the' in 242 is being picky. What they don’t understand is that the language of the resolution was drafted at the highest levels of US government at the time."

Read the whole thing.

Labels: Eugene Rostow, settlements are legal, UN Security Council Resolution 242

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:06 AM