This essay offers an assessment of the extent to which UNSC Resolution 242's procedural and substantive recommendations have facilitated a negotiated settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The historical record of each of the mechanisms of the Middle East peace process demonstrates that the mediation mechanism established in 242 was too feeble for the task assigned to it. The resolution's ambiguities and omissions further diminished its value as a tool of dispute resolution, creating confusion about what acceptance of 242 signified, encouraging hard bargaining by the parties, and denying leaders the political cover for necessary compromise.
This essay examines the consequences of the near-canonical status acquired over the years by UN Security Council Resolution 242. After tracing the evolution of the vision of peace seen to flow from 242, the essay explores the various ways in which the resolution has been read. In particular, the interpretation of Israel (backed by the United States) is examined, along with the balance of power factor. The essay concludes by suggesting that clinging to 242 as "canonical" inhibits clear-sighted thinking on new approaches that take cognizance of the greatly altered circumstances.
Israel takes the position that UN Security Council 242's call for a "just settlement of the refugee problem" does not require the repatriation of the Arabs displaced from Palestine in 1948. However, the background to the drafting of that phrase, reviewed in this article, suggests that this was in fact the intention of the resolution's drafters.
UN Security Council Resolution 242, drafted to deal with the consequences of the 1967 war, left the outstanding issues of 1948 unresolved. For the first time, new Israeli conflict-resolution proposals that are in principle based on 242 directly involve Palestinian citizens of Israel. This essay explores these proposals, which reflect Israel's preoccupation with maintaining a significant Jewish majority and center on population and territorial exchanges between Israeli settlements in the West Bank and heavily populated Arab areas inside the green line. After tracing the genesis of the proposals, the essay assesses them from the standpoint of international law.
Christians United for Israel, the Zionist lobby group that has grown by leaps and bounds since its founding two years ago, held its second annual conference in Washington, D.C., July 2007. Attended by political figures and rank-and-file members alike, the AIPAC-style conference showcased the group's formidable financial, organizational, and political strength, signaling that the group seems poised to set the agenda for future Christian Zionist work in the United States.
This section is part ninety-five of a chronology begun in JPS 13, no. 3 (Spring 1984). Chronology dates reflect Eastern Standard Time (EST). For a more comprehensive overview of events related to the al-Aqsa intifada and of regional and international developments related to the peace process, see the Quarterly Update on Conflict and Diplomacy in this issue.
This section lists articles and reviews of books relevant to Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Entries are classified under the following headings: Reference and General; History (to 1948) and Geography; Palestinian Politics and Society; Jerusalem; Israeli Politics, Society, and Zionism; Arab and Middle Eastern Politics; International Relations; Law; Military; Economy, Society, and Education; Literature and Art; Book Reviews; and Reports Received.
Harvard political economist Sara Roy is the leading researcher and most widely respected academic authority on Gaza today. Her monographs include The Gaza Strip Survey (1986), The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development (1995, 2001), and the forthcoming Between Extremism and Civism: Political Islam in Palestine (2008). The present volume consists of previously published essays, arranged thematically, with a new preface, overall introduction, and two-chapter conclusion. There are four parts, each providing a fresh introduction that updates and contextualizes Roy's arguments.