D: "even according to your minimalist interpretation (from Israel`s point of view) of un 242 it was still about giving Israel territorial expansion and hence peace." Then that Israeli "point of view" is in VERY BAD FAITH, because Res 242 expressly states the very opposite by "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" Res 242 is careful - very careful indeed - NOT to remove from Israel the right to attempt to negotiate the acquisition of land via an diplomatic agreement, but it is also careful - very careful indeed - to underline that Israel can not simply INSIST that she is entitled to keep the land she has seized in a lightning war. The very best spin you can put on Res 242 is that the UN SC *expected* that Israel would be able to use her position of strength to negotiate a nip/tuck of her borders. Well, Israel COULDN'T, and DIDN'T, and after 40 years still HASN'T. In which case after 40 years 242 is STILL saying she has to withraw.
Nusra Front in Syria says it has detained U.S.-trained rebels (Reuters)
from the article: Failed marks in comprehension