On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML

Negotiating semantic minefield of 'occupied' and 'disputed' becomes a pressing necessity

By David Singer - posted Thursday, 19 June 2014

2. Do the words "Withdraw from territories" used in Security Council Resolution 242 mean "all the territories"?

3. Are there "1967 borders" or only "1967 armistice lines"?

4. Did the words "Reconstitute the Jewish National Home" as used in the Mandate for Palestine preclude the creation of a Jewish State?

5. Does "Palestine" include what is today called "Jordan"?

Whilst one side talks "occupied territory" and the other "disputed territory"-negotiations will continue to go nowhere.

A pathway through this semantic minefield needs to be found which leads to the parties using commonly agreed and understood language.

If not-this minefield could blow up with disastrous consequences for everyone-not just the disputants.

Another Syria or Iraq is the last thing the world needs now.

Pages:
‹
1
2
Page 3
›
All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

About the Author

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer, a Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International - an organisation calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine. Previous articles written by him can be found at www.jordanispalestine.blogspot.com.