Madam, - Tom Cooney (March 17th) fishes out the old red herring of the missing "the" before "territories occupied" in UN Security Council resolution 242 in order to claim that Israel is not obliged to withdraw from "all" Palestinian territories occupied in 1967.
Mr Cooney concedes that the definite article is present in the Spanish and French versions of the resolution, but claims that "these were intended to remain true to the English text", so apparently the intention mysteriously survives the patent failure to give it expression. He neglects to find equally ingenious explanations of the definite article's appearance in the Chinese and Russian versions.
Less blatantly pro-Israeli legal experts have long since disposed of these arguments. The London solicitor John McHugo, writing in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly last year, points out that the absence of a definite article in the notice "dogs must be kept on a lead" does not imply that "some dogs must be kept on a lead" but clearly means that "all dogs must be kept on a lead."
Sheldon L. Richman of the Cato Institute (US) points to the preamble to resolution 242, the second paragraph of which begins, "Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. . ." He comments succinctly: "One cannot have a right to the inadmissible", and concludes that "both legally and morally, the occupation is wrong."
Mr Cooney contends that 242 enshrines Israel's right to withdraw, whenever it suits it, "to secure and recognised boundaries"; this deliberately obfuscates the resolution's affirmation of the right "of every State in the area. . .to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries", a right that Israel has consistently and belligerently denied to its neighbours.
Mr Cooney cites Lord Caradon, UK sponsor of 242, in defence of his case. However, in the 1981 book UN Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity, Lord Caradon made the following statement:
"It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. . .East Jerusalem, The West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted."
He concluded: "The policy of creeping colonisation on the West Bank and in Gaza and the Golan have threatened any prospect of settlement and peace. . .These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of Resolution 242." - Yours, etc.,
RAYMOND DEANE, Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Dublin 1.