[2] The preamble refers to 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".
[3] 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.
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.
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 the settlement of the refugee problem.
[15] 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.
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.
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 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.
"[25] 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 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.
Solicitor John McHugo, a partner at Trowers & Hamlins and a visiting fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at Edinburgh University, draws a comparison to phrases such as: Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park.In spite of the lack of definite articles, according to McHugo, it is clear that such an instruction cannot legitimately be taken to imply that some dogs need not be kept on the lead or that the rule applies only near some ponds.
Shabtai Rosenne, former Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and member of the UN's International Law Commission, wrote that: It is a historical fact, which nobody has ever attempted to deny, that the negotiations between the members of the Security Council, and with the other interested parties, which preceded the adoption of that resolution, were conducted on the basis of English texts, ultimately consolidated in Security Council document S/8247.
Kissinger replied "I couldn't agree more"[51] 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.
"[53] 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.
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.
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]On June 19, 1967, President Johnson declared the five principles, including land for peace, that he believed comprised the components of any United Nations settlement of the Middle East crisis.
[59] On June 9, 1967, Israeli Foreign Minister Eban assured Arthur Goldberg, US Ambassador to the UN, that Israel was not seeking territorial aggrandizement and had no "colonial" aspirations.
Goldberg said the principle of territorial integrity has two important sub-principles: there must be a withdrawal to recognized and secure frontiers for all countries, not necessarily the old armistice lines, and there must be mutuality in adjustments.
Rostow told Harmon that he had already stressed to Foreign Minister Eban that the US expected the thrust of the settlement would be toward security and demilitarization arrangements rather than toward major changes in the Armistice lines.
Ambassador Goldberg told King Hussein that after taking into account legitimate Arab concerns and suggestions, the US would be willing to add the word "Israeli" before "Armed Forces" in the first operative paragraph.
[67] A State Department study noted that when King Hussein met on 8 November with President Johnson, who had been briefed by Secretary Rusk on the US interpretation, the Jordanian monarch asked how soon the Israeli troops would withdraw from most of the occupied lands.
According to scholar Shaul Mishal, "a real shift in the PLO position towards the occupied territories;unequivocal support for military struggle has ever since been supplemented by a willingness to consider political means as well."
The 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence included a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242 later known as "the Historic Compromise",[85] implying acceptance of a two-state solution and no longer questioning the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
It follows that the provision contained in that draft relating to the right of all States in the Near East "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries" cannot serve as a pretext for the maintenance of Israel forces on any part of the Arab territories seized by them as a result of war.
The statement by the Brazilian representative perhaps gives a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions: I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States.
We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States.
The governments of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon recognized Jarring's appointment and agreed to participate in his shuttle diplomacy, although they differed on key points of interpretation of the resolution.