• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NY Times with misleading headline: U.S. Ambassador Says Israel Has Right to Annex Parts of West Bank

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,673
5,771
880

Since the interview with Ambassador David Friedman was an exclusive to The New York Times, who is going to disagree that this is what he said?

Except that, he didn't.

His words were: "Under certain circumstances, I think that Israel has the right to retain some, but not all, of the West Bank."

Also in the article

Mr. Friedman declined to say how the United States would respond if Mr. Netanyahu moved to annex West Bank land unilaterally.

“We really don’t have a view until we understand how much, on what terms, why does it make sense, why is it good for Israel, why is it good for the region, why does it not create more problems than it solves,” Mr. Friedman said. “These are all things that we’d want to understand, and I don’t want to prejudge.”


So where in the article is Friedman saying ANNEX? Retaining territory does not necessairly mean annex and could come in all forms of negotiations, land swaps or even a one state solution.

All the techniques of the fake news media and other leftist tactics that you see used against Trump and others on the right were originated and tested against Israel. If you want to see how propaganda is weaponized just study Israel and you will see all the same things we have been seeing the last 2 years of fake news and lies.
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
4,553
1,969
535
USA
Don't read the New York Times, even for the laughs. They shouldn't get any click compensation for waging a disinformation campaign against the American people.
 

Zangiefy360

Member
Aug 30, 2018
824
1,373
375
Between this, that horrific anti-semitic cartoon, their shilling for the far left (like Omar), it's become adundently clear that the NYT has an issue with antisemitism.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,504
680
So where in the article is Friedman saying ANNEX? Retaining territory does not necessairly mean annex...
"Can't we call bad things, something nicer?"
Yeah, sure we can.
Putin didn't call annexation of Crimea "annexation" either, you know. So why not.
Let's call it like Vladimir did, "re[union".
Because something something Bible, something.

 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,673
5,771
880
  • Like
Reactions: btgorman

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,673
5,771
880
"Can't we call bad things, something nicer?"
Yeah, sure we can.
Putin didn't call annexation of Crimea "annexation" either, you know. So why not.
Let's call it like Vladimir did, "re[union".
Because something something Bible, something.

Still doesn't address the fact that NYT took Friedmans words out of context and created a mis leading headline.

Why couldn't the NYT be more honest with its headline and say US ambasador says Israel has right to retain some parts of West Bank in certain circumstances?

Because an honest headline that reflects Friedmans words doesn't fit into the Times anti-Israel agenda? Just change a few words here or there so it fits the narrative.

And not sure why you mentioned the bible which has nothing to do with the times putting up a wrong headline.

If the PA agreed to land swaps and Israel retained some of Judea is there anything wrong with that then why wouldn't the retain the land agreed to? Considiring that land swaps have been discussed in previouse negotiations, Israel would end up retaining the land in those land swaps.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,504
680
How is annexation of West Bank different of doing the same in Jerusalem or Golan Heights?

Still doesn't address the fact that NYT took Friedmans words out of context and created a mis leading headline.
Yeah, they skipped "Under certain circumstances".
I would make noise about, had Mr LetMeCountArabs Ambassador specified, exaclty what those circumstances are.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,504
680
Because an honest headline that reflects Friedmans words doesn't fit into the Times anti-Israel agenda? Just change a few words here or there so it fits the narrative.
Let's not be dellusional, shall we?
"Under certain circumstances" doesn't reverse the statement's meaning at all, having recent moves by WH, which were so welcomed by Mr Ambassador.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,673
5,771
880
Let's not be dellusional, shall we?
"Under certain circumstances" doesn't reverse the statement's meaning at all, having recent moves by WH, which were so welcomed by Mr Ambassador.
How is annexation of West Bank different of doing the same in Jerusalem or Golan Heights?


Yeah, they skipped "Under certain circumstances".
I would make noise about, had Mr LetMeCountArabs Ambassador specified, exaclty what those circumstances are.
Well kinda proves my point since it seems to have worked on you to think that the ambassador said Israel can Annex the west bank, which is not what he said in the article.

Go read around and you will find many people misinterpreting what Friedman said based on the Times shoddy headline.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,504
680
Well kinda proves my point since it seems to have worked on you to think that the ambassador said Israel can Annex the west bank, which is not what he said in the article.
I know Mr Friedman's background. That is clearly what he MEANT.
If not, nobody stops him from clarifying, exactly what those "circumstances" under which Israel can annex parts of West Bank are. Especially with recent recognition of annexation of Jerusalem and Golan Heights in mind.

Are the "circumstances" about Mr Trump being in a good mood?
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,673
5,771
880
I know Mr Friedman's background. That is clearly what he MEANT.
If not, nobody stops him from clarifying, exactly what those "circumstances" under which Israel can annex parts of West Bank are. Especially with recent recognition of annexation of Jerusalem and Golan Heights in mind.

Are the "circumstances" about Mr Trump being in a good mood?
probably along the lines of:

“We really don’t have a view until we understand how much, on what terms, why does it make sense, why is it good for Israel, why is it good for the region, why does it not create more problems than it solves,” Mr. Friedman said. “These are all things that we’d want to understand, and I don’t want to prejudge.”

Israel retaining land is in accordance with resolution 242 anyways, which did not call for withdrawal from ALL territories and called for SECURED and recognized borders. So if I would have to guess the circumstances it would be in regards to a peace agreement that would give Israel secure borders as per UNSC 242.

But hey I am not Friedman and it would be a great follow up for NYT to ask him to clarify those circumstances maybe they interview him again.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,504
680
“We really don’t have a view until we understand how much, on what terms, why does it make sense, why is it good for Israel, why is it good for the region, why does it not create more problems than it solves,” Mr. Friedman said. “These are all things that we’d want to understand, and I don’t want to prejudge.”
US appoints Jewish nationalist as an ambassador.
Dude keeps spitting out crazy stuff, some of it is supported by The Orange Man.

Israel retaining land is in accordance with resolution 242 anyways
You are referring to the resolution about "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" right?


which did not call for withdrawal from ALL territories and called for SECURED and recognized borders
Yeah, but nope:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 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."[4]

Oh, and here is what was occupied, not that strange cut on the English version of the wikipedia (marked green):

 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,673
5,771
880
US appoints Jewish nationalist as an ambassador.
Dude keeps spitting out crazy stuff, some of it is supported by The Orange Man.
Whats next you going to call him a settler like Abbas did?

You are referring to the resolution about "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" right?




Yeah, but nope:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in 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."[4]

Oh, and here is what was occupied, not that strange cut on the English version of the wikipedia (marked green):

Yes you just repeated what I said. First off

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

The word ALL is not in there, and its for a very specific reason.

The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from “all the” territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant “that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands.” The Arab states pushed for the word “all” to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word “all.” The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: “It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear.”


This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution.
On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from “all the territories.” When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”


Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: “The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words ‘the’ or ‘all’ and ‘the June 5, 1967 lines‘....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.”
Even thought the Soviets and the Arabs want to pervert the words of 242, the words ALL were not put in there specifically by the creators of the resoultion. It is not meant to be read as ALL the territories regardless of how much the Arabs wanted it to read that way.

And yes you posted a map of the land that Israel won in its defensive war. And now you can see they gave up that huge green part called the Sinai, and gave up the smaller green part called Gaza, and have given the Palestinians autonomy 40% of the other green part. They have essentially withdrawn from 90% of the land they occupied. With Jordan and Egypt having a peace treaty with Israel that recognized Israels borders as the Jordan river and the Egyptian border, not the 1949 armistace lines, Israel is in compliance with 242. And of course the Palestinians are not mentioned anywhere in 242 nor were they a party to 242.

So I guess you proved my point then. Israel, Jordan, Egypt have complied with 242, Israel withdrew from territories (not ALL as per the creators of 242) and has secure and regonized boundries with those 2 countries. So retaining parts of the WB in a negotiated settlment is not against 242.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,504
680
Whats next you going to call him a settler like Abbas did?
I recall his counting palestinians (in the context of who'd outnumber whom), so, yes, that's actually would be close to what he is?

The word ALL is not in there, and its for a very specific reason.
From "some" isn't there either, that's one crazy interpretation, that goes against the very title of the resolution.
Not withdrawing from all occupied territories would mean it's OK to wage wars to grab land.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,673
5,771
880
I recall his counting palestinians (in the context of who'd outnumber whom), so, yes, that's actually would be close to what he is?
Sorry I have no idea what this means? He was counting palestinans? As in a census? You are going to have to clarify what you mean.

From "some" isn't there either, that's one crazy interpretation, that goes against the very title of the resolution.
Not withdrawing from all occupied territories would mean it's OK to wage wars to grab land.
The authors of the resolution made it very clear as I quoted, that the word ALL was specifically left out because it wasn't expected that Israel would go back to the 1949 armistace lines. The Arabs wanted the word in there and it was specifically left out. Its not my interpretation, its what the creators of the resoultion wanted. The crazy interpretation is the Arab one that tries to put the word ALL into the resoultion and demand Israel go back to 1949 armistance lines which goes against what the authors of the reoslution wanted. Even crazier is the Palestinians somehow interpreting the resolution as applying to them when they are not mentioned in it and are not a party to it.

As far as your second point, it was the Arabs that waged war in 47 and illegally grabbed Judea and Gaza. Isreal fought a defensive war against Jordan and liberated the land from Jordans illegal occupation. I can reverse the question and ask you is it ok for countries to wage a war of extermination and when they lose they just get a do over with no consequences?
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,504
680
Sorry I have no idea what this means? He was counting palestinans? As in a census?
As in "we can't grab that land yet, but orthodox Jews are working on them not becoming majority".


The authors of the resolution made it very clear as I quoted, that the word ALL was specifically left out because it wasn't expected that Israel would go back to the 1949 armistace lines.
Resolution declares land grabbing through wars illegal, that talk about mysticall "ALL" missing is one of the most ridiculous arguments on the subject I have ever told.

Citations needed on "Soviets wanted to include".

And this is simply a lie: the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from “all the territories.”

When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”
Perhaps he meant Israel had to give up land grabbed in 1949?
For starters, he was only one of the creators, but refer to "we need to redraw borders" as endorsement of Israeli land grabbing is crazy.


And yes you posted a map of the land that Israel won in its defensive war.
A "defensive war" that Israel started.
Basically the way Russian history is presented in Putin's Russia.
Russians got 1/6th of Planet Earth by fighting only defensive wars.
Somehow.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,673
5,771
880
As in "we can't grab that land yet, but orthodox Jews are working on them not becoming majority".
Sorry I still don't follow you. Is that a quote from Frideman?


Resolution declares land grabbing through wars illegal, that talk about mysticall "ALL" missing is one of the most ridiculous arguments on the subject I have ever told.

Citations needed on "Soviets wanted to include".

And this is simply a lie: the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from “all the territories.”

When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.”
Perhaps he meant Israel had to give up land grabbed in 1949?
For starters, he was only one of the creators, but refer to "we need to redraw borders" as endorsement of Israeli land grabbing is crazy.



A "defensive war" that Israel started.
Basically the way Russian history is presented in Putin's Russia.
Russians got 1/6th of Planet Earth by fighting only defensive wars.
Somehow.
I will use Wiki for one sorry if a bit long.

President Carter asked for a State Department report "to determine if there was any justice to the Israeli position that the resolution did not include all the occupied territories". The State Department report concluded:

Support for the concept of total withdrawal was widespread in the Security Council, and it was only through intensive American efforts that a resolution was adopted which employed indefinite language in the withdrawal clause. In the process of obtaining this result, the United States made clear to the Arab states and several other members of the Security Council that the United States envisioned only insubstantial revisions of the 1949 armistice lines. Israel did not protest the approach.[46][47]
Ruth Lapidoth describes the view, adopted by Israel, which holds that the resolution allowed Israel to retain "some territories". She argues "The provision on the establishment of “secure and recognized boundaries” would have been meaningless if there had been an obligation to withdraw from all the territories.[48] U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissingerrecalled the first time he heard someone invoke "the sacramental language of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, mumbling about the need for a just and lasting peace within secure and recognized borders". He said the phrase was so platitudinous that he thought the speaker was pulling his leg. Kissinger said that, at that time, he did not appreciate how the flood of words used to justify the various demands obscured rather than illuminated the fundamental positions. Kissinger said those "clashing perspectives" prevented any real bargaining and explained:

Jordan’s acquiescence in Resolution 242 had been obtained in 1967 by the promise of our United Nations Ambassador Arthur Goldberg that under its terms we would work for the return of the West Bank of Jordan with minor boundary rectifications and that we were prepared to use our influence to obtain a role for Jordan in Jerusalem.[49]
However, speaking to Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon said "You and I both know they can’t go back to the other [1967] borders. But we must not, on the other hand, say that because the Israelis win this war, as they won the '67 War, that we just go on with status quo. It can't be done." Kissinger replied "I couldn't agree more"[50]

Moreover, President Gerald Ford said: "The U.S. further supports the position that a just and lasting peace, which remains our objective, must be acceptable to both sides. The U.S. has not developed a final position on the borders. Should it do so it will give great weight to Israel's position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights."[51]

Furthermore, Secretary of State George Shultz declared: "Israel will never negotiate from, or return to, the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders." Secretary of State Christopher's letter to Netanyahu states: "I would like to reiterate our position that Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders, which should be directly negotiated and agreed with its neighbors."[52]

A key part of the case in favour of a "some territories" reading is the claim that British and American officials involved in the drafting of the resolution omitted the definite article deliberately in order to make it less demanding on the Israelis. As George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, said:

The Israelis had by now annexed de facto, if not formally, large new areas of Arab land, and there were now very many more Arab refugees. It was clear that what Israel or at least many of her leaders, really wanted was permanently to colonize much of this newly annexed Arab territory, particularly the Jordan valley, Jerusalem, and other sensitive areas. This led me into a flurry of activity at the United Nations, which resulted in the near miracle of getting the famous resolution – Resolution 242 – unanimously adopted by the Security Council. It declares "the inadmissibility of territory by war" and it also affirms the necessity "for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area". It calls for "withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the recent conflict." It does not call for Israeli withdrawal from “the” territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word “all”. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn’t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.[53]
Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution, takes a subtly different slant. His focus seems to be that the lack of a definite article is intended to deny permanence to the "unsatisfactory" pre-1967 border, rather than to allow Israel to retain land taken by force. Such a view would appear to allow for the possibility that the borders could be varied through negotiation:

Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line I was not prepared to use wording in the Resolution which would have made that line permanent. Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent "secure and recognized" boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.[24] The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1948, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...[54]
Arthur J. Goldberg, another of the resolution's drafters, concurred that Resolution 242 does not dictate the extent of the withdrawal, and added that this matter should be negotiated between the parties:

Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal.
If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations.[55]
Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969: "As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."

Mr. Joseph J. Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"): "That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties." Mr. Sisco was actively involved in drafting the resolution in his capacity as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs in 1967.

President Lyndon B. Johnson:

Fifth, the crisis underlines the importance of respect for political independence and territorial integrity of all the states of the area. We reaffirmed that principle at the height of this crisis. We reaffirm it again today on behalf of all.
This principle can be effective in the Middle East only on the basis of peace between the parties. The nations of the region have had only fragile and violated truce lines for 20 years. What they now need are recognized boundaries and other arrangements that will give them security against terror, destruction, and war.
There are some who have urged, as a single, simple solution, an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4. As our distinguished and able Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Goldberg, has already said, this is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities. Certainly troops must be withdrawn, but there must also be recognized rights of national life, progress in solving the refugee problem, freedom of innocent maritime passage, limitation of the arms race, and respect for political independence and territorial integrity."[56]

A recent article in Haaretz (left wing Israelie paper) from someone who was involved, in a small way in the drafting of the resouliton

I know, because I participated – albeit in a small way – in the drafting of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 back in 1967, when Justice Arthur Goldberg was the United States Representative to the United Nations. I had been Justice Goldberg’s law clerk, and was then teaching at Harvard Law School. Justice Goldberg asked me to come to New York to advise him on some of the legal issues surrounding the West Bank.

The major controversy was whether Israel had to return "all" the territories captured in its defensive war against Jordan, or only some of the territories.

The end result was that the binding English version of the United Nations Resolution deliberately omitted the crucial word "all," and substituted the word "territories," which both Justice Goldberg and British Ambassador Lord Caradon publicly stated meant that Israel was entitled to retain some of the West Bank.

Moreover, under Resolution 242, Israel was not required to return a single inch of captured territory unless its enemies recognized its right to live within secure boundaries.

Friedman is right, therefore, in these two respects: (1) Israel has no right to retain all of the West Bank, if its enemies recognize its right to live within secure borders; (2) Israel has "the right to retain some" of these territories. The specifics – the amount and location – are left to negotiation between the parties.
And yes it was a defensive war. Egypt closed the straits (an act of war) kicked out UN observers and ammassed troops. But even if we disregard Egypt, JORDAN attacked Israel first. Israel actually told Jordan to stay out and they still attacked. So maybe Israel pre-emptivly struck Egpypt, but not Jordan. So Israel's fight against Jordan was 100% defensive it did not attack Jordan.

But thats besides the point because the 67 war was just a continuation of the 49 war. Which was not a land grab on Israel's part, it was an offensive aggressive war to destroy the Jewish state and STEAL all the land by the Arab side. Notice how Jordan and Egypt did not create a Palestinan state? And Jordan actually Annexed the land, renamed itself TRANS JORDAN and gave all the Palestinians citizenship. If you don't call that a land grab then I don't know what to say.

But since the Arabs never made peace with Israel after 49, didn't recognize it or any boundries, the 67 war was just a continuation of the 49 war that never actually ended. And the Arabs were the aggressors in the 47 war. And the Arabs also illegally grabbed Judea and Gaza and illegally occupied them until 1967.

And then the final point which I mentioned, but the Palestinians are not mentioned in 242, and are not a party to 242. The only mention to Palestinians is a just solution to the refugee problem. They weren't at the big table with Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

So the parties to 242 Jordan, Egypt, Israel are in accordance with 242. Jordan in 94 and Egypt in 78 made peace deals with Israel that defined its boundries. Neither of them said the borders of Israel are the 1949 lines.

The Israel–Jordan peace treaty was signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty resolved territorial and border issues that were ongoing since the 1948 war. The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan. Upon its signing, the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers, the Dead Sea, the Emek Ha'arva/Wadi Araba and the Gulf of Aqaba were officially designated as the borders between Israel and Jordan and between Jordan and the territory occupied by Israel in 1967
The Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979, created an officially recognized international border along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip. A dispute arose over the marking of the border line at its southernmost point, in Taba. Taba was on the Egyptian side of the armistice line of 1949, but Israel claimed that Taba had been on the Ottoman side of a border agreed between the Ottomans and British Egypt in 1906, and that there had previously been an error in marking the line. The issue was submitted to an international commission composed of one Israeli, one Egyptian, and three outsiders. In 1988, the commission ruled in Egypt's favor, and Israel withdrew from Taba later that year.
So Israel, Egypt, Jordan have all fulfilled 242.

NOW all this to say I don' deny that Palestinians have a claim on Judea & Samaria, but they don't have an exclusive claim, and like how the issues were resolved with Jordan and Egypt, direct negotiations should take place and both sides should make their case.

So yes Friedman is correct in saying depending on the circumstances Israel has the right to retain some territory. Even Abbas agrees with this since he has accepted the idea of land swaps in past negotiations. Everyone and their mother knows that any peace deal will see Israel retaining some of the settlments along with land swaps for the Palestinians.