The Zionists’ Fictional Rendering of UN Resolution 242

by May 28, 2013Foreign Policy13 comments

The moral of the story is that facts just don't matter to apologists of Israeli aggression and occupation of Palestine.

Dani Dayan in Haaretz offers a standard summary account of Israel’s unilateral interpretation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242:

It was not just the Israeli position that Israel would not withdraw to the armistice lines or provide any compensation for the territory it won. In practice, it was the position of the international community. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 demand that Israel withdraw from “territory,” not from “the territories.” The Arab and Soviet attempts to force Israel into a full withdrawal were rejected. Even people who think the resolutions apply to each front separately must admit that Israel has no obligation to render “compensation” at an Arab aggressor’s behest for territory that remains in its possession.

This is pure fiction.

In fact, it was just the Israeli position that Israel would not withdraw from the territories it occupied during the June 1967 war, which was emphatically not the position of the international community.

Resolution 242 does not demand “that Israel withdraw from ‘territory'”. The word in the Resolution is territories”, plural. It is true that there is no definite article “the” before this plural noun, but this has no bearing on the meaning of the clause in which it appears or on the intent of the Security Council. The absurd logic of the Israeli argument presented here by Dayan is that since the resolution did not say “all of the territories”, then we must interpret it to mean “some of the territories”.

The Arab and Soviet position that Israel must withdraw fully to the armistice lines were not rejected. This was the position of the entire international community at that time, including the U.K. and the U.S. Dayan would have readers believe that the will of the Council was that it was permissible that Israel acquire Palestinian territory by war. Yet the resolution explicitly emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war was inadmissible.

Finally, Dayan argues that this principle only applies to the “aggressor” nation, which is false, and that in this case Israel was the non-aggressor, which is also false. The 1967 war began on the morning of June 5 when Israel launched a surprise attacks against Egypt, obliterating most of Egypt’s air force while it was still on the ground. Israel justifies this launching of the war by declaring it to have been “preemptive”, which is also false. It was not a preemptive war, by definition. While Israeli apologists like to claim that this was a necessary act of self-defense to protect Israel against an imminent Egyptian invasion, the fact of the matter is that Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Nasser would not be so foolish as to start a war with Israel. U.S. intelligence agreed, assessing that war was imminent on the grounds that it would be started by Israel with an attack on Egypt, whose military positions in the Sinai were recognized as being defensive.

After starting the war with its attack on Egypt, Israel proceeded to invade and occupy the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. In accordance with the principles of international law emphasized under Resolution 242, the International Court of Justice has observed that every inch of Gaza and the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, is “occupied Palestinian territory”.

The moral of the story is that facts just don’t matter to apologists of Israeli aggression and occupation of Palestine. Zionists have created entire histories that while almost universally accepted in the West as accurate narratives are completely fictional. The above is just one common example.

Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.

About Jeremy R. Hammond

About Jeremy R. Hammond

I am an independent journalist, political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, book author, and writing coach.

My writings empower readers with the knowledge they need to see through state propaganda intended to manufacture their consent for criminal government policies.

By recognizing when we are being lied to and why, we can fight effectively for liberty, peace, and justice, in order to create a better world for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

Please join my growing community of readers!


My Books

Related Articles


  1. jwils09

    Very informative read.

    • Steven Lamb

      What I am struggling to understand is that Judea and Sumerian wee occupied by the Jordanians before the 6 day war, so how can the land be occupied Palestinian?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Steven, I don’t understand what your question is. Please explain.

      • Peter

        The Jordanians annexed the west bank in 1950 i think and the annexation was recognised. The Jordanians transfered their rights to the territory to the PLO in 1988

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        No, Jordan’s annexation was not internationally recognized, as Jordan had no “rights” to the territory.

  2. Nofal

    Very good article. Thanks for the clarification.

      • Nofal

        You’re welcome. I read another article of yours in which you go into details about events that occurred prior to and led to the 1967 war. I have also listened to Dr. Norman Finkelstein and Prof. Noam Chomsky’s lectures on these events. Would you happen to have any documentation or primary sources you can share, particularly on minutes between Israel and President Johnson?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        It’s a major undertaking, but I would recommend checking out the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States series of documents, available online.

      • Nofal

        Great! Once again, many thanks to you. It takes much courage for you to speak the truth when it doesn’t want to be heard and when you subject yourself to unwarranted accusations of anti-semitism or anti-Americanism.

        I just found out about your website today. I will definitely be visiting it often.

        Have a great week.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Thanks for your interest. You might also be interested in subscribing to my newsletter (see the form in the right sidebar), a (usually) weekly compilation of my writings, plus exclusive sneak peeks at my forthcoming book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, delivered to your inbox.

  3. Sherliza

    Very helpful read. I am currently writing an essay for uni about the how the lack of enforcement measures undermines international law. Basically that in the face of all the resolutions and the israeli wall findings, Israel has breaches international law on many occasions but due to lack of enforcements mechanisms and other political interests coming into the picture, it got away with major human rights abuses. Thank you for this article.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This