Jump to content

Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Useless Map

[edit]

The "Map of territories occupied by Israel, Date 22 November 1967" accompanying this article makes no sense at all. It excludes the Sinai and it does not explain what the coloring means at all. Brasselimburg (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came to say the same. It is extremely odd as the conquest of Sinai was a principal cause of international shock. Among other things the area is twice the size of Israel + Gaza + Golan Heights + West Bank and extended up to the Suez canal. There is a good map that is used for the the Six-Day War Israeli_occupation_of_the_Sinai_Peninsula articles. It makes sense to use it here as well.

I'm not sure how to get it to render in non-gigantic size, so I will just link it.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:6DayWarEnglish.png 

Isak Rubin (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snap! It's misleading because to put the resolution in context it needs to show the territories occupied to which the resolution's calling for de-occupation refers, the Sinai first. How can we change it? JonathanMeldrum1975 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also misleading because it misrepresents which territories were occupied.
Resolution 242 is absolutely explicit that conflict does not move international boundaries, so the Gaza Strip annexed by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were occupied territories reclaimed during the Six Day War.
Sinai and the Golan became territories occupied by Israel, and the resolution demands their return. AJRT1 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Love that "reclaimed". Sorry but your personal analysis is off-topic in addition to being wrong. Zerotalk 10:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble

[edit]

If I understand the preamble correctly, "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" means that the 1948 Arab-Israeli War did not change the Mandate boundaries. AJRT1 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

The introduction doesn’t tell me what the resolution is actually about. 76.149.87.68 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

The text "Secretary of State Dean Rusk" should be amended to "The United States secretary of state Dean Rusk"

  • Why it should be changed:

There is no context indicating that this is a USA secretary of state.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Rusk

187.92.78.179 (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 1 September 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: The section below seems to me to be misrepresenting the quote. As per the source that is already referenced to support this quote (https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-507-kk94747m5g), in the full context of what Lord Caradon says he doesn't seem to be stating that UNSC 242 means that Israel shouldn't withdraw from each and every territory occupied in the war (which is how this is currently framed in the article), but rather that although Israel must withdraw from the territories; what exactly constitutes the territories should be rationalised to make sense of some of the borders in a final agreement.

Personally I would advocate for removing this entirely as I think the quote is entirely misleading in the context it is applied, but at a minimum the fuller quote should be provided so that people can at least have the fuller context of what was being said.

Diff:

−
Lord Caradon also maintained, We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew – that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.
+
Lord Caradon also maintained, They`re bad boundaries; they`re just where the troops happened to be at a cease-fire line twenty years before, just where they happened to be sitting. The Arab legion was sitting across the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and therefore there had to be a detour right up to 1967. So we knew -we all knew -- that the boundaries of `67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier. So we deliberately did not say -- I`m glad to be able to say that - we did not say that the `67 boundaries must be forever. We thought there should be a boundary commission to hear both sides and to deal with the thing in a sensible manner.

Toverhead (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242&oldid=1309005188"