----- Original Message ----- From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:24 AM Subject: RE: This week in the Middle East > > But then, there is a decades-old UN Resolution according to which Israel > should not even *be* in the Occupied Territories anymore. > The UN resolution that is considered by most parties to be the basis of peace is UN resolution 242. The two most important clauses are shown below:
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; One sees several interesting things about this. As mentioned before, the word territories stands by itself. According to one of the drafters of this resolution, that ambiguity is deliberate. If "the territories" or "all territories" was the intended meaning of resolution 242, then it would have been written that way. So, Israel was required to give up territories, but not necessarily all of the territories captured in the 1967 war. As is typical in diplomatic circles, such a resolution offers a tremendous amount of flexibility for the parties involved. This makes a great deal of sense. The involved parties need to work out the details of the agreement. This has been done in a piecemeal fashion. First Egypt and Israel agreed to a peace treaty. Egypt agreed to keep the Sini as a demilitarized zone when Israel returned it and agreed to normalize relations with Israel. Both parties agreed to table the problem of Gaza. This was a specific implementation of Resolution 242. Israel returned land acquired in the 6 day war in exchange for security on the Egyptian border. The Oslo accord set a blueprint for Israel and the Palestinians to reach the same type of accord. It provided for specific means of trading land for peace and security. Part of that agreement was a limitation on the weapons that would be allowed the Palestinians. It is clear that the Palestinian authority has been directly violating this agreement. After Arafat turned down an agreement that would have provided over 90% (I think its actually over 95%) of the occupied territories for a Palestinian state, he restarted the infatal and arranged for shipments of weapons. It is not a matter of Israel violating resolution 242 for 30 years while the Arabs were trying to have it implemented. Resolution 242 is a quid pro quo. Sharon has recently reaffirmed Israel's support of this resolution. One cannot simply look at one side (the return of land) in the absence of the other (secure boundaries). Further, the Oslo accord is more important than this resolution. In it, the parties agreed to take certain steps. The UN resolution is the opinion of the UN. The Oslo accord is closer to a treaty. Countries that act contrary to various UN resolutions do not necessarily break signed agreements. Countries that violate signed accords do, by definition. So, the Oslo accords are supremely important in trying to achieve peace between Israel and the Arabs. It is both the tangible expression of Resolution 242 and a signed agreement. Thus, the acquisitions of weapons by the Palestinians in direct violation of the accord show bad faith. Bad faith does not lead to a negotiated agreement.
