That is wrong. The french version stated:

> Retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit.

In this context, "des" means "de les". It is indeed a definite article.

With context it is clear. But the way the author takes « des territoires » out of context, makes it look like it's the indefinite article. They should have translated it to 'of the territories'.

Why not just concede that you were wrong? Even if, yes, the author could have made it a bit more difficult for you to be wrong?

He's not really wrong. As a French speaker myself, seeing "from 'des territoires'" and a translation as a definite article was jarring, since the definite form of the article already contains the "from", so preceding the quote with the "from" strengthens the intuitive parse as an indefinite article.

Isn't it ambiguous? I would translate "withdraw from territories" and "withdraw from the territories" the same way (edit: so does Google Translate). It's a failure by the translator who should have worded it "retrait...de tous les territoires" or "retrait...de certaines territoires" (withdrawal from all, or some of the territories) as appropriate.

It's clear in the context of a good-faith negotiation that Israel wasn't being given the option to withdraw from one square metre and keep the rest. But the language gives some plausible deniability to their supporters.

"withdraw from territories" would be translated as "Retrait des forces armées israéliennes _de_ territoires occupés lors du récent conflit" and "withdraw from the territories" as "Retrait des forces armées israéliennes _des_ territoires occupés lors du récent conflit". It is not ambiguous at all.

No, it’s not ambiguous (native speaker here).

This is obvious weasel wording. during the writing of the resolution it was made clear that it meant all the territories.

This is how it was phrased:

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

any native enlgish speaker can read the declaration and see from the contest that it clear that all territories taken during the war are meant.

The Israelis came up with this facetious excuse to try to encroach on more land.

indeed, when one says "Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park."

it does not mean, for any sane person that some dogs shouldn't be kept on the lead near ponds in the park.

Also:

"it is an accepted rule that the various language versions must be considered together, with the ambiguities of one version elucidated by the other"

Plus, the reason that Israel must give back the territory is the prohibition of acquiring land by force.

If you can't acquire land by force. you can't acquire any land by force. it's illogical for the rule to only apply on some but not all land taken by force.