No, Abu, they don't explain to me how to read. Sorry mate - but I can read English and UN protocol states that "the meaning of UN resolutions shall be that which the members voted on", meaning not what some uninvolved individuals say was the understanding by the voting members. So as to be absolutely clear on what those member states of the Security Coincil voted on at the time, here is the text of UN SC Resolution 242 IN FULL. Now let us see what sense the reasonable man might make of what those members intended. As opposed to placing the quotes of non-voting individuals in bold, I chose to be closer to the real truth by placing wording of the actual text that those members voted on, in bold.

__________________________________________________ _
The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war (*1) and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

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:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict (*2);
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement 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 (*3) free from threats or acts of force;
Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

__________________________________________________ __________

(*1) So first off, the SC clearly stated that acquisition of territory by war is not admissable. so:
1) Bang goes Zionist myth number 7 which states that the occupied territories belong to it (Israel) as Spoils of War.
2) The SC clearly recognised that Israel had acquired territory during the 6 Day War. In other words it was then, and even more so now, occupying land that did not belong to it. QED it had strayed beyond its boundaries - there is no debate about this in terms of the subject of your thread.

(*2) Here is where it refers to Israels withdrawal Abu - here. It is quite clear. "... withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Now before you mention the old tired lack of the word "the" (as in the territories), just read it again. Does it say Israel should withdraw from some territories? Does it say Israel should withdraw from no territories? No!! - it says Israel should withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and when that is read in conjuction with (*1), a reasonable person can have precious little doubt regarding what the SC member states voted on Get back to where you were before the conflict, namely the 1949 armistice line (the Green line).

For those who are interested, Wikipedia has collected a range of opinions on this matter. Although the Statements by the Security Council Representatives are clearly the most important reference (by virtue of UN protocol and procedures) as to what the members actually voted for, I personally enjoy John McHugo's view of what "Israel shall withdraw from (the) territories ccupied" means in terms of the missing "the" - he compared it to:

"Dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park."
In spite of the lack of definite articles (the), 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. Further, McHugo points out a potential consequence of the logic employed by advocates of a "some" reading. Paragraph 2 (a) of the Resolution, which guarantees "freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area", may allow Arab states to interfere with navigation through some international waterways of their choosing.

3) And finally it is here at (*3) that the "secure and recognised boundaries" that you like to refer to, is mentioned. You will note that it is not related to the instruction to Israel to withdraw. Naughty Abu - that was dishonest debate!!