Purely Commentary
The Much-Debated UN Resolution 242
and the Authoritative Explanations
To the Witness Stand on the UN 1967 Resolution:
The Views of Arthur Goldberg and Eugene Rostow
Affirming Right to Negotiations Before Withdrawals
the region depends upon its own peoples and its own lead-
ers . . . What will be truly decisive in the Middle East will
Constant reference to the Nov. 2, 1967, UN Resolu- be what is said and what is done by those who live in
the Middle East." Other countries can help, but the time
tion is invariably linked with accusations that Israel
when even great nations could impose their will on small
flaunts world opinion in not ahering to it. This charge is
ones is long past.
made by those who would like to see Israel withdraw
Because Israel won the Six-Day War, and because she
promptly from occupied territories. The assumption is
is a modern democratic state with a stable leadership, she
that the Arabs then would recognize Israel and there'd be
is being called upon by some to display more flexibility
an end to wars. All sensible people who listen to Sadat,
Qaddafi, Arafat—to any and all Arab spokesmen—know in both method and substance. As one who has been con-
cerned with this problem for many long months, may I
that the moment there is a reduction in Israel's defenses
record my conviction that Israel is in no way approaching
there'd be an all-out attack to destroy the Jewish state.
peacemaking with undue rigidity. I am entirely confident
Had it not been for the buffer area, the Oct. 6 infamy
that, given the chance—and the chance has not yet been
which inaugurated the Yom Kippur War might have re-
given—Israel, which has sacrificed so much in war and
sulted in Israel's annihilation.
in the struggle for recognition of her right to live in peace,
Why, then, does Israel insist that she adheres to the
will not be found wanting in flexibility, willingness to com-
UN Resolution 242 and that if the Arab states had fol-
promise, justice, vision and magnanimity—the qualities
lowed its regulations there would have been negotiations
essential to the making of a lasting peace.
that could well end hostilities?
But Israel cannot make such a peace alone. A corre-
Because Resolution 242 calls for negotiations before
sponding will and commitment must also exist on the other
withdrawals and as soon as it is implemented there can
side. And here the key question still is what it has been
be a rational, human, sensible approach to the tragic
for 20 years; whether the Arab nations are ready at long
issue.
last to recognize Israel as a sovereign and independent
Let's call to witness two important diplomats, both
state, as the UN Charter and the world recognize her to be.
having played important roles in the framing of the reso-
Shortly after the June war, our government stated:
lution and in American endorsement of it. Let's draw
"Those who live in the Middle East can live on a diet of
upon the authoritative views of Arthur J. Goldberg, who
hate, but only at the cost of hatred in return. Or they can
was the U. S. representative at the UN in 1967, and Eu-
move toward peace with one another." The time is long
gene Rostow, at the time U. S. undersecretary of state.
overdue for the parties to the continuing conflicts in the
A resume of the premises underlying U. S. support
Middle East to abjure hatred and to move toward peace.
for the Nov. 22 UN Resolution, presented by former Su-
There is no one more authoritative than the former
preme Court Justice Goldberg outlines the following:
U. S. official spokesman at the UN, and Mr. Goldberg's
1. What the Middle East needs is a real, just and
views cannot be negated, either by Malik or Baroody or
lasting peace, accepted and agreed upon by the parties—
Zayyat or the Chinese.
a peace under which Israel's right to live as a sovereign
There is also the view of Eugene Rostow who was
state within secure recognized boundaries will be accepted
very close to President Johnson.
and respected; under which Israel's Arab neighbors will
Rostow, who is presently Yale University Sterling,
be equally assured of the same rights; under which no
Professor of Law, in a background memorandum on Reso-
nation in the area will be deprived of viability or security.
lution 242 states:
2. Our second premise was this: The UN Charter's
"Syria's position as an armed defender of the Secur-
requirement that each nation must accept the right of
others to live necessitates that the Arab states explicitly ity Council Resolution is anomalous, to say the least, since
renounce any state or claim of belligerency. As long ago it has never accepted the Resolution. And the argument
that the Charter authorizes the use of force under such
as 1951, the Arabs' belligerency was found by the Security
circumstances, as self-defense against armed attack, is
Council to be inconsistent with peace. Of all the claims of
entirely untenable. Israel's presence in the occupied ter-
peace, our government held, none is more fundamental
ritories under international law is that of an occupying
than the right of a sovereign state to have its existence
power pursuant to the Security Council's cease-fire Reso-
and independence respected. This right, specifically pro-
lutions of 1967, until the parties reach an agreement of
vided in the UN Charter, was not respected in the case of
peace under the Security Council Resolution of Nov. 22,
Israel for 20 years, as we all know.
1967.
Withdrawal
of
Israeli
troops,
we
held,
should
be
3.
"But the Egyptian and Syrian case fails for a deep-
in the context of, and pursuant to, a peace settlement
er reason. It cannot be reconciled with the Security Coun-
accepted and agreed upon between the parties. Such a
cil Resolution, which plays a role of critical importance
settlement will necessarily entail agreement on secure
in the Middle Eastern struggle, since it was passed un-
and recognized boundaries, ensuring the right of both Is-
animously by the Security Council, and thus reflects a
rael and her Arab neighbors to live in peace, free from
unique moment of agreement between the Soviet Union
threats or acts of force.
and the Western powers.
The Resolution of Nov. 22, 1967, in its first operative
"The Security Council Resolution rests on principles
paragraph, explicitly treats at the same time with both
for a just peace in the Middle East which the United States
of these vital necessities of peace: on one hand, the with-
announced on. June 19, 1967, in the hope that the nations
drawal of Israeli forces; on the other hand, termination
would rally to them finally, when they came to realize
of the Arabs' claims of belligerency, together with re-
that no other approach could work. Those principles were
spect for, and acknowledgement of, Israel's sovereignty
welcomed as fair and even-handed by Arabs and Israelis
and her right to live in peace within secure and recognized
alike when they were put forward. The United States has
boundaries.
meticulously adhered to them ever since. Both our inter-
In linking these principles, the Security Council real-
ests and our moral code requires us to continue to so so.
istically acknowledged that the Arab states could not be
"In recent months, statements by high American of-
left free to assert the rights of war while Israel was called
ficials indicate that we may be contemplating a retreat
upon to abide by the rules of peace—that to seek with-
from the Security Council Resolution toward the disastrous
drawal of troops without agreement upon secure and rec-
policy we followed in 1957, when we acted as broker be-
ognized boundaries would be just as fruitless as to seek
tween Israel and Egypt, and obtained Israeli withdrawal
agreement upon boundaries without withdrawal.
from the Sinai without a peace treaty, in exchange for
4. Our fourth premise was that free and innocent
private and public assurances from Nasser—commitments
passage through international waterways must be assured
he repudiated, one by one, until he occupied Sharm el-
for all nations. What principally precipitated the conflict
Sheikh in 1967, and thus made the Six-Day War nearly
in June 1967 was the United Arab Republic's decision not
inevitable.
to permit Israeli flag ships to pass freely through the
Straits of Tiran. It is a plain-fact of life—and we said so
"That history of broken promises determined the form
in the UN debates—that a return to peace will require
and content of Security Council Resolution 242. This time,
agreement between the UAR and Israel concerning free-
the international community said, there should be no Isra-
dom of navigation for Israeli shipping, not only in the
eli withdrawal from the 1967 cease-fire lines until the
Straits of Tiran but in the Suez Canal.
parties had made an agreement establishing peace=an
agreement which would fix the "secure and recognized
5. There must be justice for the refugees. And all
boundaries" to which Israel would withdraw. The peace
nations must address themselves to this problem: Israel
agreements should assure the inviolability of these boun-
(perhaps better than she has done in the past), the _Arabs
daries through measures including the establishing of de-
(perhaps better than they have done in the past) and all
militarized zones; provide guarantees for freedom of navi-
other countries. They must seek, with new energy and
gation through the Strait of Tiran and the Suez Canal; and
new determination, to ease the plight of those made
achieve a just settlement of the refugee problem. The
homeless by wars and conflicts, whether long ago or
language of the Resolution and the debates of the Security
recently.
The time is long overdue for a realistic and humani- Council make it clear that in establishing "secure and rec-
ognized" boundaries in accordance with the principles of
tarian solution, in which all countries concerned, as well
as the world community, will equitably participate. Israeli the Resolution, the peace agreements could modify the
Armistice Demarcation lines of 1949, which were express-
concessions with respect to refugees should be balanced
ly intended not to be political boundaries. The Resolution
by Arab willingness to assume a fair share of responsi-
calls for Israeli withdrawal "from territories occupied"
bility for them. The Western countries should help even
during the Six-Day War; the Council repeatedly rejected
more generously than they have and should welcome
language which would have required withdrawal "from
refugees from the Middle East.
THE territories occupied in the recent conflict."
6. Finally, it was a clear premise of the U.S. vote
"There is thus no basis for the view that the Resolu-
on the Nov. 22 Resolution that the parties to the conflict
tion requires Israeli withdrawal to the Armistice Demar-
must be parties to the peace. It is they who, sooner or
cation line as they stood on June 4, 1967. For reasons
later, must make a settlement. As President Johnson said
fundamental to the history of the conflict, the Resolution
at the time: "The main responsibility for the peace of
embodies "a package deal." It does not require an Is-
raeli withdrawal as such; it calls for an agreement of
2 Friday, November 2, 1973 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
—
By Philip
Slomovitz
peace among the parties, pursuant to which Israel would
withdraw to boundaries established by the agreement.
`The heart of the matter is that Egypt and Syria de-
cided to make war against Resolution 242 rather than
obey its mandate to negotiate peace. Before the outbreak
of hostilities, American officials were quoted as urging
Israel as well as the Arab states "to resume negotiations"
under the Resolution. These comments are mystifying, so
far as public information is concerned, since Israel has
publicly pressed for negotiations on the basis of the Secur-
ity Council Resolution, and Egypt has rejected every at-
tempt to get them started. Egypt even turned down the
proposal of certain African governments to initiate nego-
tiations on the principle of "no annexations," which the
Israelis accepted.
"The Egyptian position is inconsistent with practical
reality as well as international law. The problem of secure
and recognized boundaries would be altogether different
for Israel if the parties agree, for example, to the com-
plete demilitarization of Sinai and the West Bank, and
on appropriate measures to guarantee Israel's maritime
rights in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Suez Canal. On the
basis of such agreements—and not only on such a ba r
would withdrawal pursuant to an agreed timetable bee. e
a feasible basis for an enduring peace."
In a humanistic and just international organization,
the issues that were created by Arab intransigence would
never have arisen. But in an arena in which anti-Israel
sentiments were based on anti-Jewish prejudices (Baroo-
dy's and other vile speeches against all of Jewry), it is
difficult to expect fair treatment.
Israel will not be pushed around. The UN's unfortu-
nate role also compels world Jewry not to permit being
harassed with the vilest attacks and the hesitancy on the
part of the major world powers to act firmly in the matter.
Therefore, the war for just rights and for Israel's
security continues. Even UN Resolution 242 of Nov. 22,
1967, can be made workable—provided it is adhered to,
as outlined by the two legal and diplomatic experts—
Arthur J. Goldberg and Eugene V. Rostow.
When will the great diplomats come to their senses,
stop threatening Israel's existence and maligning the U.S.?
Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger gave a frank
statement when he said there isn't and need not be a con-
frontation between the U. S. and the USSR.
Let the powers that be strive for justice, and we
shall have it!
The New Resolution: Will It Be Implemented?
Now, having asked for a cease fire because the Israeli
forces had encircled its troops on the Suez east bank,
will the enemies of Israel—and they include the sancti-
monious Western powers—also keep referring to the new
est Security Council Resolution 339 of Oct. 22? That reso-
lution includes the provisio that
"IMMEDIATELY, AND CONCURRING WITH THE
CEASE FIRE, NEGOTIATIONS START BETWEEN
THE PARTIES CONCERNED UNDER APPROPRI-
ATE AUSPICES AIMED AT ESTABLISHING A
JUST AND DURABLE PEACE IN THE MIDDLE
EAST."
Egypt's military representatives met with Israel's to
secure release of its trapped army. Will Egyptian civilian
spokesmen also meet with Israelis to talk about a durable
peace?
On trial are not only the Arabs, but even more the
Western powers that have given them courage and the
oil interests. A shameful chapter has been written in
world history by these two elements.
*
*
*
Dr. Samuel Belkin: Symbol of Learning
Honors being accorded by American Jewish commu-
nities to Dr. Samuel Belkin, on the 30th anniversary of
his presidency of Yeshiva University, represent much
wider aspects than testimony of
accomplishments of an individ-
ual. They embrace a vast field of
achievement that relates to Jew-
ish scholarship generally and
particularly to Yeshiva Univer-
sity.
Under his leadership, Yes-
hiva University developed into
one of the very great institutions
of learning in this country. The
emphases on Jewish studies 1--e
been implemented with scie
studies, and the Albert Ein.cin
College of Medicine, an adjunct
Dr. Belkin
of the university, has earned a
position of leadership in medical research.
The role of the honoree is, of course, of major sign-
ificance. Dr. Belkin is a man of learning. An authority
on Bible and Talmud, an historian, his own literary and
teaching gifts have elevated him to a position of leader-
ship.
He has inspired hundreds of students, and both in the
rabbinate, in which many at Yeshiva University and Isaac
Elhanan Theological Seminary have specialized, and as a
leading factor in educational movements, he has emerged
a giant among scholars.
All honors accorded him are in themselves tributes
to the great school of which he is president and to the
Orthodox way of life which is being so highly dignified
by his leadership. Dr. Belkin has well earned the encomia
of Jews everywhere who have benefited from his leader-
ship.