"territories" to be returned. Resolution 242 anticipated that Israel cannot be expected to go back to the 1949 armistice lines. Lord Caradon, one of the architects of the resolution, in a letter to The Times of London, explained:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its position of June 4, 1967, because these positions were undesirable and artificial and just happen to be the places on the day the fighting stopped in 1948".

The French, however, in their translation of the text of 242, inserted the "the"; since then, the English version has incorrectly inserted it as well, creating the totally false impression -- "fake news" -- that all territories are to be returned.

In Conclusion

Two other major problems in Israel have developed, which need most urgentnorth of Gaza, plus a limited strip north and south of the Sea of Galilee. The remaining area west of the Jordan River was to be a Palestinian State, while Jerusalem was to be an international city embedded in the heart of the Palestinian area.
The Jews did not hesitate to accept the plan, in spite of it's limitations, and the Palestinians did not hesitate to reject the plan for obvious reasons. So much for any satisfactory two state solution now.

Reply->

Gary Gould • Feb 20, 2017 at 20:50

The famous historian Bernard Lewis said, "History does not change only the way we view it does". Your article is excellent and well highlights some basic history. Your comments on Israeli's and other Jews that make commentary that is deemed not in