Some rare factual information about the Arab/Israel conflict in the Melbourne Age (thanks to letter writer Merv Morris):
Borders defined
CRAIG Barrett ( Letters, 31/8) errs in his understanding of the 1967 UN resolution 242 relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Painstakingly crafted before its final adoption, it calls for Israel's withdrawal from ''territories'', not ''the territories'' it won in defending itself from Arab attack in the Six Day War.
The absence of the definite article in the resolution was no oversight but an acknowledgement by its formulators that Israel was indefensible within its pre-1967 borders and that territorial adjustments would be required.
The West Bank, rejected by the Palestinian Arabs in 1947 and 2000, is not ''somebody else's occupied territory''. It remains contested land, the sovereignty of which must finally be decided by Arab- Israeli negotiations to end the conflict.
Merv Morris, East St Kilda
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Craig Barrett offered fiction as fact to readers of The Age (The Age 31/08) when he said 'UN resolutions 242 and 425 demand Israel withdraw from the occupied territories and return to its internationally recognised borders'. Merv Morris, has corrected Barret's misrepresentation of 242.
What about UNSC Resolution 425? Believe me. It has nothing to do with Israel's legal presence in disputed territory!!
And what Barrett disingenuously calls "borders", are no more than armistice lines.
The original Barrett letter is in all respects devoid of historical fact. What motivates such a guy to pull the wool?
Post a Comment