There have been many threads concerning UN Security Council resolution 242 which was passed in the aftermath of the wars of 1966 and 1967. Most of these are now closed, hence this resuscitation. The resolution seems to be unclear, because there is one group which adamantly claims that Israel was not called on by 242 to withdraw from the territories occupied as a result of the 1966/1967 wars, and there is another group which is equally adamant that 242 indeed calls for the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces. Here you can find the full unedited text of UNSCR 242 [Click]. Obviously resolution of these disagreements is crucial because the consequences are poles apart for the Lands of Armageddon, and are perhaps the most critical reason for the on-going conflict. But how to resolve this? What we firstly need to agree on is that the proper interpretation of 242 is mainly a legal issue. It has little to do with the Bible, with nationalism, with race, with religion, with what is written anecdotally in newspapers, on the internet, with what talking heads tell us on TV, nor with what posters on this forum tell us they believe. So would it not therefore be appropriate, given that this topic has arisen lately in various threads on this forum, to get rid of the Myths, the bias, the faith aspects, the racial prejudice and to seek a disciplined legal analysis? If so, then I offer John McHugos very structured analysis of 242. Are its sections internally consistent, because they should be? Is the resolution clear. It was particularly that emphasis on internal consistency that impressed me. I thoroughly recommend it as a must-read for all those who do not want to be guilty of uninformed lip-flapping. McHugos most recent analysis can be found here [click]. This is how he structured it: I know that there will be many who are supremely disinterested in the legal analysis of 242. For those with a more disciplined need for formal understanding, I look forward to your comments.