[Vtaroian]

VN-resolutie 242:
1.(i)Terugtrekking van de Israëlische gewapende strijdkrachten uit de bezette gebieden van het recente conflict.

Daar bent U dik fout in. Lees eerst de resolutie 242.

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

is niet hezelfde als :
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict."

The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."

This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."

That's pretty clear my good fellow.

En nu nog iets :

Alsof dat vredesverdrag met Egypte ook maar iets te maken heeft met VN-resolutie 242

Peace agreement March 26, 1979
Text: The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel;
PREAMBLE
Convinced of the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;

Het heeft dus alles te maken met 242...

and finaly :

En Egypte heeft geen afstand gedaan van de Gazastrook

Article II (of the peace agreement)
The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

So, een aandachtig studie van documenten ontkracht veel mythes van de linkse droomwereld.