UN Security Council Adopts Resolution 242 on Middle East Peace
Landmark resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories in exchange for peace, establishing 'land for peace' formula.
NEW YORK - The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242 today, establishing a framework for Middle East peace based on Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the June war in exchange for secure and recognized borders.
The carefully crafted resolution, negotiated by British Ambassador Lord Caradon, calls for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and “termination of all claims or states of belligerency.”
The resolution’s deliberately ambiguous wording—referring to “territories” rather than “all territories” in the English version—allows different interpretations. Israel claims this permits retention of some areas for security, while Arabs insist on complete withdrawal.
“This resolution provides a balanced framework for peace,” US Ambassador Arthur Goldberg stated. “It recognizes that peace requires compromises from all parties.”
The resolution also affirms the need to solve the refugee problem, guarantee freedom of navigation, and establish demilitarized zones. It authorizes appointing a special representative to facilitate agreement.
Israel accepted the resolution while emphasizing that withdrawal must come through direct negotiations producing peace treaties. “We will not return to the vulnerable lines of June 4, 1967,” Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared.
Arab reactions remain divided. Jordan and Egypt indicated qualified acceptance, while Syria rejected it outright. The PLO condemned the resolution for reducing the Palestinian cause to a refugee problem rather than recognizing national rights.
“Resolution 242 treats us as homeless refugees, not a people with legitimate rights to our homeland,” PLO spokesman Shafiq al-Hout stated.
The resolution establishes the “land for peace” principle that will likely guide future negotiations. However, with fundamental disagreements over interpretation and implementation, the path to actual peace remains unclear.
Diplomatic observers note that while 242 provides a framework, it cannot bridge the gulf between Israeli security demands and Arab insistence on complete withdrawal, nor does it address Palestinian aspirations for statehood.