If 242 had said "the territories" then all avenues for Israel to seek a border adjustment would have been taken from her. Yet we KNOW the Brits and the Yanks were anxious for the 1949 borders to be straightened. That's why they removed "the" - doing so allowed Israel the room to negotiate a border swap. But how to prevent Israel from claiming (as the more ridiculous still do) that this meant it could Keep Whatever It Liked? Here's how; Lord Caradan insisted that "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" be added, despite loud objection from Israel's Abba Eban. THAT makes it impossible to read 242 in "good faith" and still claim Israel can unilaterally annex any of that land. It can't. If it wants to keep some of the land then it has to negotiate for it, and that means offering something of equal value. Simply saying "Let me have it or else I'll NEVER leave" isn't good enough. Israel can't SNATCH it. It has to BARTER for it.
India court gives New Delhi given 3 days to come up with plan to fight pollution (Reuters)
from the article: What Olmert could say