Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242/Archive 8

Dubious quotation
The text contains the following sentence:

In a statement to the General Assembly on 15 October 1968, the PLO rejected Resolution 242, saying "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region."

No citation is given. The origin of this sentence seem to be the page on Resolution 242 in the Jewish Virtual Library (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html) which is not an authoritative source. I have read the transcript of the General Assembly session of 15 October 1968, and also of several days before and after. No such statement was made. At the time the PLO was not recognized as a representative of the Palestinian people, and it is most unlikely that they would have been invited to make a statement to the GA. This sentence is fiction.

The PLO did make a statement on Resolution 242 on November 23, 1967, the day after the resolution was passed, explaining its reasons for rejecting the resolution. The citation for this statement is Documents on Palestine, edited by Dr. Mahdi Abdul Hadi, Volume II, pages 307-308, published by PASSIA (Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs) in December 2007. The text of the statement is available at http://www.religion-science-peace.org/2016/06/04/plo-statement-on-unsc-resolution-242/

I suggest to the editors that the existing sentence be replaced by one based on this source. Walk Tall Hang Loose (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I see this claim made in various unreliable places but never with a checkable reference. Every UN publication, including all statements and transcripts, has a reference number that allows easy checking.  What is it?  The relevant verbatim transcripts are A/PV.1693 to A/PV.1698.  I don't see it there. Israel's rejection (imo) of Res 242 is a week earlier in A/PV.1686. Zerotalk 13:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160421122334/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063%21OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-binding
The adjective "non-binding" was added to the intro in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242&diff=752287367&oldid=736689089 It is true that the resolution is non-binding but so are almost all SC resolutions. I don't think it adds anything to the lead and could confuse the reader to believe that this resolution in particular is non-binding.

I also want to point out that Wikipedia has an article for almost every single SC resolution and the adjective "non-binding" isn't used in any of them. I therefore suggest that the adjective be removed from this article. ImTheIP (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080306021217/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/cec8d84e2fe2c0d285256e3d006a820b!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/cec8d84e2fe2c0d285256e3d006a820b!OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112025712/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1681.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1681.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2019
Link "PLO" to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization" CytopathSKG (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
Please restore this text with the following source to back it up:

Thanks--Aroma Stylish (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It was objected to not only because of it being unsourced but because it is not in the article body (stuff in the lead needs to be in the body and the lead is a summary of the important points of the body). Where would you want to put it in the body? After that we can see whether that is a sufficient importance to make it into the lead. I want to think a bit more but my first reaction is that 1974 seems arbitrary. As I know it (I need to check), 242 was opposed by the PLO right from the outset not just from 1974 and then later they relaxed their opposition.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact, just following the given wikilink to the 10 point plan, it says in there "...only repeated the principles of the policies which the Palestinian National Council had accepted in the past: the denial of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242". So, while WP is not in itself a source, that accords with what I had thought, that the rejection does not date from 1974; on the contrary, that date might be looked at more as a date when the PLO began to think about relaxing their objection to it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I couldn't find any reference to the Steadfastness and Confrontation Front in the ref you gave, maybe it is on another page? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per my comment in the above thread just now, I agree it is true that the PLO rejected it. They did so by definition, as they had been founded only a few years earlier on what was then an extremist platform. What I hadn’t realized is that at that point they represented mostly refugee Palestinians, not the people on the ground in the West Bank. Which makes their rejection entirely logical, but needs to be put in its proper context. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Palestinian rejection
The lede includes the following sentence, which is unsourced and not covered in the main body: “The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in its Ten Point Program adopted in 1974 rejected Resolution 242, with the rejection repeated by the Steadfastness and Confrontation Front in 1977.”

Does anyone have a source for this? We need to explain exactly what part of the resolution they rejected, if any, in order to put it in its proper context.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the specifics, I had thought the PLO was against 242 from the beginning. Later on, the objection was mainly based on the Palestinians being portrayed as nothing more than refugees.Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See below.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Added here
 * As an aside, pretty sure Arafat signed on to 242 in 1988.Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I reinstated the text with sources. Article 1 of the 10-point program is the rejection of 242 as the basis for Arab or international dealings.--Chuka Chief (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I think this is a little hasty. I have just been reading what is considered one of the best sourced books on the subject – Avi Rai’s The Bride and the Dowry, which chronicles the period from June 67 to October 68 in detail. See a summary here. The sentence you added back, together with the subsequent quote we have from Israel, is used as a pro-Israeli talking point in order to support their theme of long-term “Palestinian rejectionism”. But the out-of-context juxtaposition of these two facts creates a misleading picture. In reality, the PLO were irrelevant actors at the time. It was the West Bank Palestinian leadership who mattered, and they made a consistent effort to make peace with Israel until they were blocked by the Israelis. Israel’s interest in land-for-peace stretched only to the Egyptian and Syrian areas. The Israeli government were at no point willing to give back the West Bank.
 * All of which is why things like this should not be in the lede until they are properly dealt with in the main body of the article (as required per MOS:LEAD).
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we need a section "PLO and Res 242" or similar in the body so the whole thing can be dealt with NPOV.Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalposts, are we? You challenged sourcing. Sourcing was provided. Rejecting 242 was a cornerstone of the PLO, the #1 article in PLO programmes. The PLO, as the main representative body of the Palestinian people, is very relevant. Further, leaving in the lede the following single sentence paragraph: "In September 1993, the PLO agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles." while omitting the longstanding PLO rejection is entirely inconsistent.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No moving goalposts, it was challenged both because it was unsourced (it was only added a couple months ago and you are sourcing it after the fact) AND because it was not in the body. It's very easy to source because it is true. It is as well completely misleading to, in effect, cherry pick the start and end dates as has been done here. At the other end of it, the 1988 Algiers declaration isn't even mentioned. This happens when you just pick out random facts and stuff them into the lead without a proper consideration. If you are unable to or don't want to do a section like I suggested I will do it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Challenge was on sources, both on talk above and in edit summary("moving unsourced to talk"). The goalposts are moving quickly. I removed the sentence in the lead on the PLO in 1993 as it is not sourced and not in body, and is not neutral without inclusion of position prior to 1993.--Chuka Chief (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please re-read the first post at the top of this thread. It said “unsourced and not covered in the main body... We need to explain exactly what part of the resolution they rejected, if any, in order to put it in its proper context.” That is the goal post that we started with, and it is the one we will end with. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the additional removal, the only reason I didn't remove it myself because it was not that which was initially disputed. I am concerned that the entirety of the PLO/242 relationship is dealt with and not only parts.Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a sub section about the PLO and 242, it still needs a little more in the way of referencing but most of it is there and I will think about a one or two sentence summary for inclusion in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Having reflected, I think the lead already does cover the fact of Palestinian acceptance of Res 242.Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Unofficial and unnecessary French translation of text back into English
1. The section on competing meaning of the English and French versions of the text is heavy with original research on French grammar. "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict" either with "the" before territories translates into the same expression "des territoires", so why bother to unofficially translate back into English when the English original version is supplied?

2. In English Language "the" is defined as saying something about *all* [my emphasis] the things referred to by a noun The use of the definitive article is crucial for meaning of the text. Lord Cardigan's remarks "… the draft resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole and as it stands."

3. The example given by John McHugo has a source that doesn't exist. The title with the phrase "Right-wing Israeli interpretation" leads to the suspicion it is a fake quote: It is also factually incorrect (see example below), something a native English speaker would recognize.

"A solicitor wants to rent out his French villa to an additional lodger. In English he instructs his local agent to clear furniture in the villa to make room for this person while the existing lodgers are away. When they come back, the existing lodgers complain that the house has been stripped bare, and all the furniture in the villa removed. The local agent responds "Mais Monsieur, you told me clear out the furniture!" No, he spoke in English and didn't specify all, he left it up to local agent to judge what would be enough to remove to make room.

I propose (a) removing the French grammar lesson on the grounds of Original Reseach (b), and remove the suspicious example on the grounds of verifiability. (c) adding Lord Cardigan's remarks on not messing with the text, in either English or translating from French. 2A00:23C7:CC18:201:9FD:5ADD:DE41:140E (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Before replying to the rest, the "suspicious example" is in fact archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20050524095037/http://www.nad-plo.org/nego/permanent/borders/related/McHugo.pdf and the title is indeed "Resolution 242: A legal reappraisal of the right wing Israeli interpretation of the withdrawal phase with reference to the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians" and if the quote you refer to is "Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park" that is in fact in the archived source. So maybe first rephrase your request so as to exclude the apparently incorrect assertions about McHugo as well as your own unsourced OR re a French villa, and take it from there. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Selfstudier, my mistake. There are a number of links for reference [38], the first warned about Malware, some didn't contain the article and one the fourth said "This site can’t be reached". Got it now, let me do as you suggest and reformulate my request focusing on the unofficial French translation into English. 2A00:23C7:CC18:201:5030:5A1F:D0DF:86D (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So, there are currently two English versions of the UNSC242 text, the official one that was drafted in English, voted in English and deposited as a UN record, and and unofficial English version put forward by those who never accepted the intentional non-prescriptive text of record. I say intentionally non-prescriptive because the text of draft resolution A/L.522/REV.3* said “Calls upon Israel to withdraw immediately all its forces to the positions they held prior to 5 June 1967” was REJECTED. It was Lord Caradon's empirical observation that the only text to gain enough votes left out the definitive article, and as official English language sources point out, "the" means "all".
 * As mentioned, translating the controversial text "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from [the] territories occupied in the recent conflict" is rendered in French from the English either with or without the "the" both as "Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit", but only when translating the resulting French translation back into English does the "the" get put back in. To put it another way:
 * Official English text: [just] territories >>> Official French text "des" territoires >>> Unofficial English translation: "the" territories.
 * Rejected English meaning: "the" territories >>> Official French text "des" territoires >>> Unofficial English translation: "the" territories.
 * So the official French translation doesn't distinguish between the accepted or rejected English meaning. Quel dommage. It is only when the French version is translated back into English that the ambiguity is resolved, and the rejected meaning is embraced. This non official translation is not of record and does not comply with the Vienna Law of Treaties, which says that any ambiguity should be resolved from the context. The context is simply the English version, the official one of the resolution that was drafted in English, voted in English and deposited as a UN record and translated from. It is unnecessary and open to bias to argue further as to what the original English version meant.
 * This unnecessary extra step is the failure of the Wiki page. I haven't (yet) explored the argument for taking the intentionally non-prescriptive interpretation, but I note the Wiki page is particularly one sided in arguing the context of the resolution. Contrary to the historical record this Wiki page ignores that UNSC242 was rejected by the Arab League at the Khartoum Conference (…no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it). Also, renowned Jurist Allen Gerson said in on page 74 "..242 did not require an immediate Israeli withdrawal from conquered territories. Rather, as did UNSCR 62, it made the future territories an issue for negotiation in the context of peace treaty deliberations...In this respect, UNSCR 242 further pursued the policy established by the Security Council in 1949 that the necessary means for termination of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a freely negotiated peace treaty." 2A00:23C7:CC18:201:5030:5A1F:D0DF:86D (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's seems to be no counter arguments so far, so let me be a little clearer on the suggestions to improve the section on French vs. English versions of the text.
 * (1) Remove the unofficial French to English translation of the equally valid French text and the translator's original research justification that seeks to reintroduce the English "all territories" meaning to the no less equal official English text.
 * (2) Include Lord Caradon's remarks "the draft resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole and as it stands."
 * (3) Cite authoritative English Language resource from the British Council's "Learn English" page that "the definite article [is used] say something about ALL [my emphasis] the things referred to by a noun", i.e. if all territories were to be included in the withdrawal.
 * I also notice some other improvements the balance the controversial meaning.
 * (A) Note the The Arab League instantly recognized the gist of the resolution and declared at the Khartoum Conference (…no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it).
 * I'm assuming "no" means "no" and not "maybe", but would be interested to hear accepted defences to that charge.
 * (B) Note that Israel did hand back the Sinai taken during the Six Day War to Egypt in exchange for a peace agreement. The map on the page seems to deny that Sinai was taken in the Six Day War.
 * 
 * (C) Include the defeated vote of the text of draft resolutions for comparison.
 * S/8253 of 20 November 1967: The parties to the conflict should immediately withdraw their forces to the positions they held before 5 June 1967 in accordance with the principle that the seizure of territories as a result of war is inadmissible.
 * S/8227: UN Documents : Security Council Report: Occupation or acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and consequently Israel's armed forces should withdraw from all the territories occupied as a result of the recent conflict.
 * (D) Reference Allen Gerson that the UN was acting consistently in that "..242 did not require an immediate Israeli withdrawal from conquered territories. Rather, as did UNSCR 62, it made the future territories an issue for negotiation in the context of peace treaty deliberations...In this respect, UNSCR 242 further pursued the policy established by the Security Council in 1949 that the necessary means for termination of the Arab-Israeli conflict was a freely negotiated peace treaty." 2A00:23C7:CC18:201:2191:3F2F:49A0:7D96 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad, link [9] should be https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180619/ 2A00:23C7:CC18:201:2191:3F2F:49A0:7D96 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove the unofficial French to English translation of the equally valid French text.... Please specify the text you wish removed and the reason for that and we will deal with that first. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad, link [9] should be https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180619/ 2A00:23C7:CC18:201:2191:3F2F:49A0:7D96 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove the unofficial French to English translation of the equally valid French text.... Please specify the text you wish removed and the reason for that and we will deal with that first. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)