Madam, - Raymond Deane is wrong to assert (The Irish Times, February 28th) that Israel illegally occupies Palestinian lands.
Before the 1967 Six-Day War no sovereign state had legal title to Gaza or the West Bank. Israel's presence on the lands in exercise of its right to self-defence is lawful and gives it the right to negotiate the conditions of its withdrawal, including provision for security, under a final treaty of peace. Israel has no obligation to hand over the lands in dispute to an aggressor. Israel can hold the disputed lands because no other state can assert better title.
After the 1967 cease-fire, Arab states rejected Israel's offer to negotiate land for peace and refused to recognise Israel. UN Security Council resolution 242 declared Israel's right to "live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries" and calls for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". It does not speak of withdrawal from "the territories" or "all territories" taken in the Six-Day War. States favouring the insertion of the definite article into the English text to force a total Israeli withdrawal failed to sway the Security Council.
The French and Spanish versions of the resolution contain the definite article. But these were intended to remain true to the English text, which is the language of the original resolution. Thus, in the French version "des territoires" is an idiomatic rendering of the English text's "territories". It is designed solely to conform to the dictates of the French language. The French UN representative said the French version was identical in sense to the English version. When the phrase "all territories" somehow found its way into the Spanish text, "all" was excised.
Lord Caradon, the UK sponsor of the draft resolution, explained that the resolution was not intended "to lay down exactly where the border should be", and "that is why one has to work for agreement". The crux is that the commitments (a) to withdraw and (b) to do so to secure and recognised boundaries must be read concurrently. To demand withdrawal without secure and recognised boundaries would endanger Israel. The intention is that the negotiated boundaries should replace the 1967 cease-fire lines. - Yours, etc.,
TOM COONEY, c/o Faculty of Law, UCD, Dublin 4.