THE ISRAEL REPORTJuly/August 1999
"It calls for respect and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every state in the area. Since Israel never denied the sovereignty of its neighbouring countries, this language obviously requires those countries to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty."Lord Caradon, an author of U.N. Resolution 242, U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations (1964-1970):
"The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal are the word 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'… the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of withdrawal."
"The Meaning of 242" - June 10, 1977
"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."Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (1966-1969):
MacNeil/Lehrer Report – March 30, 1978
"Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338… rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to 'secure and recognized borders', which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949."Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. President (1963-1968):
"The Truth About 242" - November 5, 1990
"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967 will not bring peace."
September 10, 1968
Israel's indefensible pre-1967 borders provided no security.
The Arab states should sit down with Israel, without preconditions, to negotiate peace.