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.....
U.S. Supreme Court denies Kentucky clerk request on gay marriage licenses (Reuters)
from the article: With settlement resolution veto, Obama has joined Likud