"Johan's "inadmissibility"That simply means that if you conquer territory, you don't get to keep it." Yes, that's correct. "It doesn't mean you are required to withdraw from it, that you can't dispute it, or that you can't negotiate final borders out of it." Well if you can't keep it, it actually pretty much does mean you have to withdraw from it, and what's the point of disputing something you can't keep? Particularly when Israel has been 'disputing' for over 40 years. As to the 'the' if someone says 'pay me money you owe me' it might mean 'pay me some now, some later', it certainly doesn't mean 'feel free to keep half of it.' 242 is to some extent self-contradictory but really the most Israel-friendly interpretation anyone can put on it is 'Israel can make minor swaps of land to allow it better security, while being obliged to withdraw basically from all the land it took in 1967'.
Ex-FM Lieberman: Firebomb attack in Jerusalem a reminder that norm is Arab terror against Jews (Haar
from the article: EU: Abbas close to accepting direct Mideast peace talks