":::Glad we agree on the wording above. Mentioning subsequent negotiations does go too far. First, your rationale is backwards. Being widely affirmed is what helped lead to the negotiations and eventually agreements. It was not the other way round. Both the wide affirmations and the resultant agreements are facts that don't need credibility. Also this all took decades. Second, there is a lot of information in the lead that has been very difficult to have established, such as who accepted the resolution and who rejected it, on what basis and when. Much of that ""ground work"" happened in the late 1960's and in the 70's, whereas the first agreement, Egypt - Israel was at the end of the 1970's. Furthermore many of the ""parties"" regarded that agreement as treacherous (plenty of people still do) and disputed the relationship between the treaty and the ""correct"" interpretation of this resolution. So I think that the wording proposed says most of what can be said without controversy and should be said in sequence at this point in the lead.   
 :::    

 "