Israel

[SeattleLeft]

I believe there are no innocents in the israel palestine war. I believe that If Israel complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 This would do much to aleviate the current tensions. To better understand what these resolutions are I have posted links to them below. You will have to copy them to your browser.

UNSC Resolution 242 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement

UNSC Resolution 338 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/288/65/IMG/NR028865.pdf?OpenElement

[GoesTo11]

1. I believe you meant to send this to NPR's "I believe" series

[Idealism]

2. Welcome to the forum, there are some rules you need to read up on.

this post will be either deleted or locked because it is not discussing a news article. Welcome to DU

[IndianaGreen]

3. It may have been moved down here from upstairs

and then it gets locked here. The DU Catch-22 when it comes to I/P.

[aranthus]

4. Israel is in compliance with 242

The resolution requires that the states in the region negotiate peace with each other on the twin principles of withdrawal from territory and termination of belligerency. The reason for this of course is that it was the belligerency (read the Arab war against Israel's existence) that led to the occupation of territory in the first place. It's a package deal. Land for peace.

So far, Israel has negotiated peace with two of its neighbors: Egypt and Jordan. That leaves Lebanon and Syria. However, Lebanon has not seriously entered into even a discussion of having peace talks with Israel, and Syria has attached preconditions that make peace talks moot. So it is Syria and Lebanon that need to come into compliance with 242.

I haven't mentioned the Palestinians yet, for the simple reason that 242 doesn't mention them either. That's a big reason why the PLO refused to accept 242 to begin with. In any event, that resolution offers no guidance as far as the Israel/Palestinian conflict goes, other than that it suggests that there might be a similar resolution.

Further, I think that its curious at the least that you suggest that Israel comply with 242 (presumably by unilaterally withdrawing from the Golan and West Bank), but that you don't require anyone on the other side to comply (by recognizing Israel and ending the war). Does that seem fair? Do you think that is even workable?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. The PLO refused to accept 242? Huh?

[aranthus]

6. Yeah.

In a statement to the UNGA in October, 1968, the PLO formally rejected 242 as a basis for achieving peace in the middle east. It did not accept 242 as a basis for peace until 1993.

[Idealism]

7. You seem unaware that the PLO has only observer status in the UN

which means no vote and no power.

[aranthus]

10. Of course I'm aware of it. So what?

The issue is whether the PLO accepted the principles of 242, not whether it voted on it. For that matter, Israel wasn't a member of the Security Council when the resolution passed. So what? The fact is that the PLO did not accept 242 as a basis for peace until 1993.

[Idealism]

11. The PLO was considered a terrorist organization for most of their history up to that point

And either way, acceptance and compliance are not equatable.

[aranthus]

14. Again. So what?

The historical fact is that the PLO rejected the resolution in 1968 and did not formally accept it until 1993. It's also a fact that the resolution does not even mention the Palestinians (except as a "refugee problem") I think the Palestinians might have been insulted by that, don't you think? In any event, the point is whether 242 has any "legal" import for the Israel/Palestinian dispute. Since it doesn't even mention the Palestinians, I'd say it doesn't. One has to go back to basic principles. There are two national identities vying over territory. Neither should have to live as a minority in the other's state. So negotiate a settlement that gives each side a place to live and grow as a nation in peace with the other. Is that so hard? Do we really need a UN resolution to tell us that?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. Perhaps you should read some history post-1968. 242 and 336 are the basis of what the PLO

had called for.

[aranthus]

13. It still did not formally accept until 1993.

If you have something that says different, please post it.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. When did Israel formally accept 242?

It's just that you mention when the PLO formally accepted it, but I had a look around and couldn't find when Israel formally accepted it. It's just that formal acceptance is a different thing than compliance, as people can comply (and I think with 242 there's been partial compliance) without formally accepting something...

[aranthus]

9. In May, 1968.

In a statement to the Security Council, Abba Eban indicated that Israel accepted the resolution.