Further Comment on
United Nations Choices
in the Middle East
EUGENE V. ROSTOW
As one who was a responsible participant in the process that led to Resolution No. 242, I should like to comment on Ernest Gross's cogent and penetrating analysis of the resolution. Most criticism of the resolution is simply wrong, and can easily be dismissed. Ambassador Gross's criticism is, as you might expect, fundamental, and goes to the heart of the matter. He raises two basic questions about Resolution No. 242. One, which I will come to second, is, I think, easily answered in terms of the genesis of drafting the resolution. The other is difficult, but, I think, not impossible to answer.
The first question is his basic critique of Resolution No. 242 for making a false equation, as he said, between Israeli troop withdrawals from some, but not all, occupied territories to secure and recognized boundaries established by the negotiating process, on the one hand, and, on the other, a recognition on the part of Israel's neighbors of its inalienable right to exist as a state. As Ambassador Gross says, Israel's right to exist should never be subject to negotiation at all. Here, perhaps, we come to the famous problem of the differences between
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: The Middle East:Critical Choices for the United States. Contributors: Eugene V. Rostow - Editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of publication: Boulder, CO. Publication year: 1976. Page number: 177.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.