This resolution said something very simple: colonizing occupied territory is illegal, and insisting on doing so is an obstacle to peace. That contradicts nothing that is in Res 242, and what you are trying to argue is this: because Israel insists that it WILL GET this territory in any peace agreement then Israel is already entitled to act as if it ALREADY OWNS this territory. The logical flaw in that argument is so glaring that you can't even see, well, anything.....
Saudi Arabia intercepts ballistic missile fired from Yemen (AP)
from the article: With settlement resolution veto, Obama has joined Likud
After Netanyahu says he would wait for a new U.S. president to reach a better military deal for Israel, American officials fire back.00:09 08.02.16 | 5 comments
Plan recognizes that two-state solution is not imminent, seeks to separate dozens of Jerusalem-area Palestinian villages from the city itself among other measures.11:26 08.02.16 | 0 comments
Prime minister says system deprives ministers of powers they were elected to exercise; remarks come amid drive by politicians to regain control over appointments and dismissals of senior officials.11:55 08.02.16 | 0 comments