Resolution 242 – 1967

Resolution 242

On November 22, 1967, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces “from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and stressed the necessity of recognizing the sovereignty and political independence of every state in the region.

Israel accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242 in principle, emphasizing the deliberately vague wording “from territories”—which omitted the word “the” before “territories”—as allowing for adjustments in the 1967 lines to ensure secure and defensible borders, and maintaining that the withdrawal would occur only within peace agreements in which Arab states recognized Israel’s right to exist and committed to permanent peace.

In the years that followed, the Rebbe cited Israel’s acceptance of Resolution 242 as a central cause behind ongoing international pressure on the Israeli government, pointing to it as evidence that yielding to outside demands only leads to further pressure:

All of the difficulties can be traced back to that well-known resolution, 242.

How did that resolution come about? It was adopted because there were Jews who feared international condemnation; under pressure they gave in, and a text was drafted that became the foundation for all subsequent pressure on Israel. [. . .] From then on, whenever negotiations begin, the first thing invoked is Resolution 242, adopted by a majority [in the Security Council]. [. . .]

Indeed, he had a word omitted—it does not say “all the territories,” but only “territories”—yet the results of this intended interpretation [for Israel] are now clear.

This demonstrates that by yielding ground on something the Torah does not permit to concede, Israel gained neither practical peace nor peace of mind from the nations. On the contrary, it invited further pressure—pressure that has continued for many years since.

Noting that this episode illustrates that even limited or ambiguous concessions encourage additional demands from other countries, the Rebbe believed that Israel should have responded with a firm refusal grounded in the directives of the Torah, asserting that only a principled stance commands the respect of the international community:

Multiple past experiences have demonstrated that when a Jew declared this firmly and in an unyielding manner, and explained that this was [. . .] because G‑d had decided to grant the entirety of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, the claim could not be effectively challenged.

[Only] when the Jewish people take a clear and unwavering stand [. . .] can true peace finally be achieved. [. . .]

The clearest proof is history itself: for years, the path taken was one of compromise—negotiating back and forth, offering one part after another—and yet, to this very day, peace has yet to be reached.

Results

In the ensuing years, a series of American and Israeli proposals sought to implement Resolution 242 as a framework for achieving a Middle East peace settlement. The United States pressed Israel to commit to further territorial concessions, while Israeli leaders debated various security arrangements and withdrawal terms. Throughout this period, the Rebbe consistently cautioned Israeli officials to resist such pressures, warning that every concession would invite additional demands rather than secure lasting peace.

This article is under construction. Want to help shape it? [Become an editor →]