55-439: PPSF may refer to: Palestinian Popular Struggle Front , a militant Palestinian organisation Policía de la Provincia de Santa Fe , an Argentinian police force Polyphenylsulfone , a polymer Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title PPSF . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change
110-700: A 'permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolution 242'. The main premise of the Oslo Accords was the eventual creation of Palestinian autonomy in some or all of the territories captured during the Six-Day War, in return for Palestinian recognition of Israel. However, the Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Nabil Shaath , said: "Whether a state is announced now or after liberation, its borders must be those of 4 June 1967. We will not accept
165-568: A comprehensive resolution of the Arab–Israeli conflict, on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1397 , 1515, 1850, and the Madrid principles. The Quartet has reiterated that the only viable solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967; resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties; and fulfils
220-477: A guarantee of freedom of navigation through international waterways. There must be a just settlement of the refugee problem. There must be a guarantee and adequate means to ensure the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area. As to the third operative paragraph, I have said before that I consider that the United Nations special representative should be free to decide himself
275-571: A just settlement of the refugee problem and security measures including demilitarized zones. It also provided for the appointment of a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East in order to promote agreement on a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the principles outlined in the resolution. Upon presenting the draft resolution to the Security Council, the U.K. representative Lord Caradon said: All of us recognize that peace
330-617: A restoration of Arab territory that we also called for a settlement of the refugee problem." Upon the adoption of Resolution 242, French President Charles de Gaulle stressed this principle during a press conference on November 27, 1967, and confirmed it in his letter of January 9, 1968, to David Ben-Gurion . De Gaulle cited "the pitiful condition of the Arabs who had sought refuge in Jordan or were relegated to Gaza" and stated that provided Israel withdrew her forces, it appeared it would be possible to reach
385-661: A solution "within the framework of the United Nations that included the assurance of a dignified and fair future for the refugees and minorities in the Middle East." Alexander Orakhelashvili said that ‘Just settlement’ can only refer to a settlement guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians. He explained that it must be presumed that the Council did not adopt decisions that validated mass deportation or displacement, since expulsion or deportation are crimes against humanity or an exceptionally serious war crime. According to M. Avrum Ehrlich, 'Resolution 242 called for "a just solution to
440-553: A state without borders or with borders based on UN Resolution 242, which we believe is no longer suitable. On the contrary, Resolution 242 has come to be used by Israel as a way to procrastinate." The Security Council subsequently adopted resolution 1515 (2003), which recalled resolution 242 and endorsed the Middle East Quartet's Road Map towards a permanent, two-State solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Quartet Plan calls for direct, bilateral negotiations as part of
495-481: A tangle with the Israelis." Rusk met with Foreign Minister Nikezic on August 30, 1967. However, according to telegram 30825 to Belgrade, September 1, which summarizes the conversation, Rusk said the key to a settlement was to end the state of war and belligerence and that if a way could be found to deal with this, other things would fall into place; the difference between pre-June 5 positions and secure national boundaries
550-414: A war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense. The resolution also calls for the implementation of the " land for peace " formula, calling for Israeli withdrawal from "territories" it had occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors. This was an important advance at the time, considering that there were no peace treaties between any Arab state and Israel until
605-610: Is a Palestinian political party. Samir Ghawshah was elected secretary-general of PPSF in 1971 and led it until his death in 2009. He was succeeded by Ahmed Majdalani on 8 August 2009. PPSF holds a seat on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) executive council, though it is generally considered to have a limited influence over Palestinian politics. The PPSF was founded as the Palestinian Popular Struggle Organization (PPSO) in
SECTION 10
#1732870087164660-794: Is that they be acceptable to both sides. It is a source of regret to us that the Arabs appear to misunderstand our proposal and misread our motives." Furthermore, Secretary Rusk's Telegram dated March 2, 1968, to the U.S. Interests Section of the Spanish Embassy in Cairo summarizing Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Eugene Rostow ’s conversation with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin states: Rostow said ... resolution required agreement on "secure and recognized" boundaries, which, as practical matter, and as matter of interpreting resolution, had to precede withdrawals. Two principles were basic to Article I of resolution. Paragraph from which Dobrynin quoted
715-400: Is the future of Jerusalem that it might be argued that we should have specifically dealt with that issue in the 1967 Resolution. It is easy to say that now, but I am quite sure that if we had attempted to raise or settle the question of Jerusalem as a separate issue at that time our task in attempting to find a unanimous decision would have been far greater if not impossible." Judge Higgins of
770-455: Is the prize. None of us wishes a temporary truce or a superficial accommodation. We could never advocate a return to uneasy hostility. As I have said, my Government would never wish to be associated with any so-called settlement which was only a continuation of a false truce, and all of us without any hesitation at all can agree that we seek a settlement within the principles laid down in Article 2 of
825-691: The Charter of the United Nations requires all members to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations ." Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle that there could be "no title by conquest". He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines, and treaties since
880-772: The Egypt–Israel peace treaty of 1979. "Land for peace" served as the basis of the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, in which Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula (Egypt withdrew its claims to the Gaza Strip in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization ). Jordan renounced its claims regarding the West Bank in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization , and has signed the Israel–Jordan peace treaty in 1994, that established
935-541: The Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 that will be a part of the Palestinian state. The resolution advocates a "just settlement of the refugee problem". Lord Caradon said "It has been said that in the Resolution we treated Palestinians only as refugees, but this is unjustified. We provided that Israel should withdraw from occupied territories and it was together with that requirement for
990-602: The Jordan River as the boundary of Jordan. Throughout the 1990s, there were Israeli-Syrian negotiations regarding a normalization of relations and an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights . But a peace treaty was not made, mainly due to Syria's desire to recover and retain 25 square kilometers of territory in the Jordan River Valley which it seized in 1948 and occupied until 1967. As the United Nations recognizes only
1045-655: The Ten Point Program adopted by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In 1969, the organization attacked civilian Israeli and Greek passengers in Athens Airport in 1969 which resulted in 14 injures and one dead child. A year later, the organization also hijacked Olympic Airways Flight 255 from Beirut , Lebanon en route to Athens . The hijackers ordered the flight flown to Cairo , Egypt with five crew members. Initially close to Egypt after its break with Fatah, it eventually slipped into decline. In 1982 it
1100-771: The UN Special representative over the implementation of 242. After denouncing it in 1967, Syria "conditionally" accepted the resolution in March 1972. Syria formally accepted UN Security Council Resolution 338 , the cease-fire at the end of the Yom Kippur War (in 1973), which embraced Resolution 242. On 1 May 1968, the Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of
1155-680: The West Bank in 1967 by Bahjat Abu Gharbieh , a former Ba'athist , following a split from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). It had close ties to Fatah , and in 1971 it officially became a Fatah-affiliated organization. It fell out with Yasir Arafat in 1973, and left Fatah to act independently. In 1974 PPSF left the PLO to become a founding member of the Rejectionist Front with other radical Palestinian factions who rejected
SECTION 20
#17328700871641210-478: The "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security". Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in
1265-717: The 1948 borders, there is little support for the Syrian position outside the Arab bloc nor in resolving the Golan Heights issue. The UN resolution does not specifically mention the Palestinians. The United Kingdom had recognized the union between the West Bank and Transjordan. Lord Caradon said that the parties assumed that withdrawal from occupied territories as provided in the resolution was applicable to East Jerusalem. "Nevertheless so important
1320-461: The 1993 and 1995 agreements with the Palestinians . The resolution is the formula proposed by the Security Council for the resolution of the Arab–Israeli conflict, in particular, ending the state of belligerency then existing between the 'States concerned', Israel and Egypt , Jordan , Syria and Lebanon . The resolution deals with five principles; withdrawal of Israeli forces, 'peace within secure and recognized boundaries', freedom of navigation,
1375-450: The Charter. So much for the preamble. As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear. As to the second operative paragraph, there is I believe no vestige of disagreement between us all that there must be
1430-500: The French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in
1485-655: The International Court of Justice explained "from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council Resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State. Security Council resolution 1515 (2003) envisages that these long-standing obligations are to be secured (...) by negotiation" The United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told
1540-557: The Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution." Resolution 242 is one of the most widely affirmed resolutions on the Arab–Israeli conflict and formed the basis for later negotiations between the parties. These led to peace treaties between Israel and Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), as well as
1595-618: The Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I'm not aware of any commitment
1650-664: The Struggle). United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 ( S/RES/242 ) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War . It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter . The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration. The preamble refers to
1705-400: The U.N. Security Council in 1994 that "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 as 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'. In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. Had this language appeared in
PPSF - Misplaced Pages Continue
1760-530: The United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War. A memorandum from the President's Special Assistant, Walt Rostow , to President Johnson said: "What's on the Arab Ambassadors' minds boils down to one big question: Will we make good on our pledge to support the territorial integrity of all states in the Middle East? Our best answer is that we stand by that pledge, but
1815-417: The United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel. There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of
1870-603: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A recent South African study concluded that the ultimate status and boundaries will require negotiation between the parties, according to Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The same study also found that the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention which govern ‘special agreements’ that can adversely affect the rights of protected persons precludes any change in status of
1925-449: The West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace. It is the United States' position that – in return for peace – the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza. When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by
1980-446: The aspirations of both parties for independent homelands through two states for two peoples, Israel and an independent, contiguous and viable state of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. On April 14, 2004, US President George W. Bush said to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, "The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders." Israeli officials argue that
2035-695: The concept of negotiations with Israel . Ghawshah gained a seat on the PLO Executive Committee . The PPSF split into two, the main group, the Samir Ghawsha faction, accepted the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), while Khalid ‘Abd al-Majid 's parallel PPSF opposed it from exile in Damascus , Syria. The Samir Ghawsha faction of PPSF took part in the 1996 Palestinian legislative elections with 12 candidates. Together they got 0.76% of
2090-487: The exact means and methods by which he pursues his endeavors in contact with the States concerned both to promote agreement and to assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted and final settlement." Secretary of State Dean Rusk commented on the most significant area of disagreement regarding the resolution: There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In
2145-405: The extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return. Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations. According to Michael Lynk, there are three schools of thought concerning the proper legal interpretation of the withdrawal phrase. Some of the parties involved have suggested that
2200-412: The indefinite language is a “perceptible loophole”, that authorizes “territorial revision” for Israel's benefit. Some have stated that the indefinite language was used to permit insubstantial and mutually beneficial alterations to the 1949 armistices lines, but that unilateral annexation of the captured territory was never authorized. Other parties have said that no final settlement obtained through force or
2255-820: The late 19th Century. Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941. Surya Sharma says that under the UN Charter, a war in self-defense cannot result in the acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if
PPSF - Misplaced Pages Continue
2310-540: The link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PPSF&oldid=1027577273 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Palestinian Popular Struggle Front The Palestinian Popular Struggle Front ( PPSF , occasionally abbr. PSF ) ( Arabic : جبهة النضال الشعبي الفلسطيني, Jabhet Al-Nedal Al-Sha'abi Al-Falestini )
2365-662: The national vote. The faction also took part in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election as part of the " Freedom and Social Justice " list, which got 7,127 votes (0.72%) and failed to win a seat. In June 2018 the party was admitted to the Socialist International as consultative member. The PPSF maintains five front organizations; the Workers Struggle Bloc , Palestinian Struggle Youth Union , Students Struggle Bloc , Women's Struggle Bloc and Teachers Struggle Bloc . PPSF publishes Sawt an-Nidhal (Voice of
2420-552: The only way to make good on it is to have a genuine peace. The tough question is whether we'd force Israel back to 4 June borders if the Arabs accepted terms that amounted to an honest peace settlement. Secretary Rusk told the Yugoslav Foreign Minister: 'The US had no problem with frontiers as they existed before the outbreak of hostilities. If we are talking about national frontiers—in a state of peace—then we will work toward restoring them.' But we all know that could lead to
2475-566: The operative paragraphs of the resolution, let me be clear: we would have exercised our veto. In fact, we are today voting against a resolution in the Commission on the Status of Women precisely because it implies that Jerusalem is 'occupied Palestinian territory'." The Palestinians were represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization in negotiations leading to the Oslo Accords . They envisioned
2530-487: The pre-1967 armistice line is not a defensible border, since Israel would be nine miles wide at the thinnest point, subjected to rocket fire from the highlands of the West Bank, and unable to stop smuggling from Jordan across the Jordan Valley. Thus, Israeli officials have been arguing for the final-status borders to be readjusted to reflect security concerns. Resolution 1860 (2009) recalled resolution 242 and stressed that
2585-399: The recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Egypt , Jordan , Israel and Lebanon entered into consultations with
2640-464: The refugee problem," a term covering Jewish refugees from Arab countries as stated by President Carter in 1978 at Camp David'. According to John Quigley , however, it is clear from the context in which it was adopted, and from the statements recounted by the delegates, that Resolution 242 contemplates the Palestine Arab refugees only. Arthur Goldberg , the United States ambassador to the U.N. at
2695-410: The settlement of the refugee problem. Alexander Orakhelashvili says that the Security Council manifestly lacks the competence to validate agreements imposed through coercion, not least because the peremptory prohibition of the use of force is a limitation on the Council's powers and the voidness of coercively imposed treaties is the clear consequence of jus cogens and the conventional law as reflected in
2750-403: The territory obtained through an agreement concluded during a state of belligerent occupation. The second preambular reference states: " Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security. " Srijita Jha and Akshadha Mishra said that "until 1945, annexation by conquest
2805-423: The threat of force could be considered valid. They insist that the Security Council cannot create loopholes in peremptory norms of international law or the UN Charter, and that any use of indefinite language has to be interpreted in line with the overriding legal principles regarding the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and the prohibitions on mass deportations or displacement in connection with
SECTION 50
#17328700871642860-569: Was a valid mode of acquisition of territory." Following World War I , Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations limited (but did not eliminate) the concept of the right of conquest , that is, members of the League of Nations were not required to preserve "the territorial integrity and existing political independence" of a state engaging in a war of aggression . Since World War II , Article 2 of
2915-473: Was an important difference. President Johnson responded to a complaint from President Tito that Israel could change the frontiers without Arab consent: "You note that the Arabs feel the US interprets the draft resolution to imply a change of frontiers to their detriment. We have no preconceptions on frontiers as such. What we believe to be important is that the frontiers be secure. For this the single most vital condition
2970-583: Was linked to others, and he did not see how anyone could seriously argue, in light of history of resolution in Security Council, withdrawal to borders of June 4th was contemplated. These words had been pressed on Council by Indians and others, and had not been accepted. Rusk In an address delivered on September 1, 1982, President Ronald Reagan said: In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again... So
3025-618: Was revived jointly by Syria and Libya , in an attempt to bolster hardliner and anti-Arafat forces in the PLO (Syria was simultaneously fighting the PLO in Lebanon ). Members of the PPSF were mentioned as possible suspects in the 1988 Lockerbie Bombing , believed to have been orchestrated by the Libyan regime, but Samir Ghawshah denied the charges. In 1991, PPSF was allowed to rejoin the PLO after accepting United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and
#163836