Arab Israeli Midterm

Arab Israeli Midterm - Since the aftermath of the 1967 War,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Since the aftermath of the 1967 War, UN Resolution 242 has served as the framework for peace talks (“Land for Peace”) between Israel and its Arab neighbors. In Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, 1967 has been regarded as the main reference point for any peace agreement. What are the benefits and the shortcomings of using this reference point, and how and why may the parties’ opinions differ on this matter? UN Resolution 242 has been the pivotal point of reference in Arab-Israeli diplomacy for over 30 years. As a result of the Six Day War between the two parties, the resolution has been the only agreement that has been accepted. The resolution indeed was the introduction to the notion of the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces and it linked that departure to the attainment of peace between the two parties. However, the ambiguous language of the text and different interpretations that ensued have proven to be fruitless in arriving at a lasting peace agreement.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Since the inception of the resolution both parties have drawn differing inferences from the text. Israel’s existence had since been assured, and it was clear that no Arab coalition would be able to overpower them. Egyptian President Nasser fell from his position as a worshipped sycophant and Arab nationalism also began to dwindle (Lesch, 214). The resolution called for an Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories”, however this was conditioned on the establishment of safe and secure borders for Israel. The main point of disagreement stems from this abstruseness. The resolution itself does not clearly state whether Israel’s acquisition of land by force during the war was illegal, and Israel has used this land as leverage. US President Johnson introduced his idea of ‘Land for Peace’ (Lesch, 215), which did in fact link Israel’s withdrawal with ‘respect for the political independence and territorial integrity of all the states in the area’ and also calling for ‘progress in solving the refugee problem, freedom of innocent maritime passage and limitation of the arms race’. Arab parties have insisted that Israel’s procurement of the land and the war itself was a result of Israeli aggression, therefore rendering it illegal.
Background image of page 2
The Soviet Union and Egypt argued that all conquered land should be returned, therefore retreating back to the 1948 borders. Israel vehemently opposed this contention and only agreed upon the resolution on the condition that its security concerns were addressed. In fact, it appeared that the authors of the resolution had no intention of returning to the 1948 borders, and were more concerned with extending dialogue between the parties on a peace settlement. There is no specific reference to how much or which land Israel must return, leaving it open to further interpretation and controversy, “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” (Lesch, 222). To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized borders is
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course IAFF 190 taught by Professor Mcnamara during the Spring '07 term at GWU.

Page1 / 10

Arab Israeli Midterm - Since the aftermath of the 1967 War,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online