History: UN resolutions 242 and 338

Following the June 1967 Six-Day War, the situation in the Middle East was discussed by the United Nations General Assembly, which referred the issue to the Security Council.
After lengthy discussion, a final draft for a Security Council resolution was presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day.
Pro-Arab ( and uneducated leftists) sources often claim that UNSCR 242 requires Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza, and other areas.
This is not true! Lets see what UNSCR 242 actually means.
U.N. Security Council Resolution no. 242 states, in full, as follows:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967).
The
Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation
in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of
territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which
every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all
Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have
undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter:

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the
establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should
include the application of both the following principles:

(i)
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and
respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in
peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of
force;

2. Affirms further the necessity:

(a) For
guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the
area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For
guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every
State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized
zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special
Representative to proceed to them Middle East to establish and maintain contacts
with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to
achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and
principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to
report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special
Representative as soon as possible.

Lets see of whom the resolution is talking...
"to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,"
every state in the area means: Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.
lets look again... maybe some other state is hidden in the text?
"all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations"

Lets guess what countries in the region were member states of the charter of the UN... well you were right... its
Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon - no more, no less.

now when we understood of which parties the resolution speaks, lets see what does it says.

"establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:"

and I will translate: UNSCR 242 calls on all parties to the conflict to negotiate a solution, on what terms?
"the application of both the following principles: "
that means only if both of the principles are fulfilled, not one not zero not half,- BOTH.

and what are the principles?
the first:
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict"
lets understand what is said in this line,

Israeli armed forces, not sovereignty, and not anything else.
territories occupied in the recent conflict, is it said "the territories"?- no, is it said "all the territories?" well, no.
so we learn that Israel is not required to withdraw from all the territories "occupied" in the recent conflict.
but from which territories Israel is required to withdraw then?
well we will learn in the second principle.
wait a minute... now a smart person like you will probably say "what the heck? you're just playing with semantics here! not with the "real" intention"
well, lets see what the real intention was:

The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June
4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all,
they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the
day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we
didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.

and
The United States' UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that:

The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are
the words "the" or "all" and the "June 5, 1967 lines" ... the resolution speaks
of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of
withdrawal. [This would encompass] less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli
forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved
to be notably Insecure.

Lets see in the second principle from which territories Israel is obligated to withdraw:

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and
acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within
secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

that means that the real intention is: that Israel will decide according to negotiations with the other parties to which borders to withdraw in order to achieve peace, and those borders must be secured "free from threats or acts of force", no more, no less.
Does Israel have to withdraw its forces even if the other parties don't want to negotiate? lets see:
Eugene V. Rostow (Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, and former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs), Rostow was one of the US officials involved in drafting 242 so he knows first hand what was and was not intended. He states:

Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs
between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and
allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just
and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved

that means , if the "other" parties (i.e. Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon) will not negotiate, Israel has the right to ADMINISTER the territories.
Paragraph 2 in the UN resolution add more topics to negotiate between the parties, and paragraphs 3 and 4 are strictly administrative, and has no interest for us.
of course back in 1967 no Arab country wanted to negotiate with Israel because they didn't recognized the state. so the territories were administered by Israel until the "Yom Kippur" war broke, after the war, (when Israel has captured more territories in Egypt and in Syria almost reaching the capitals of these states) UN came with resolution 338:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 (October 22, 1973).
The Security Council
1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease
all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12
hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they
now occupy;
2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after
the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in
all of its parts;
3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the
cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate
auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

the UNSCR 338 says that all the "parties to the present fighting" which means Israel, Syria and Egypt have to negotiate peace.
Israel unconditionally withdraw its forces Kuneitra district in vicinity to Damascus ( Syria), and from Cairo vicinity to the east bank of the Suez canal (Egypt).
Later in 1979 Israel eventually signed peace agreement with Egypt, and withdrew from Sinai peninsula territories to secure borders, thus withdrawing from 91% of the territories achieved in the last two wars. Gaza strip remaining as an Israeli territory (satisfying the Resolution's nonspecific withdrawal component).
in 1994 Israel signed a peace agreement with Jordan, withdrawing from some land near river Jordan and leasing some portions of agriculture land in the Jordan valley. (satisfying the Resolution's nonspecific withdrawal component) Judea and Samaria stays under Israel's sovereignty.
the Syrian border is still unresolved, since Syria's initial acquisition of the Golan Heights was illegal under international law!
Syria was created by the French mandate, while the Golan heights were under British mandate and part of the Trans-Jordania and part of the Jewish state as agreed in San Remo Conference. so the Golan heights were not legally Syrian in the first place. Israel's reacquisition of this territory was, and its present retention thereof is, lawful under international law.

Sources:
the UN document
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
What was United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and what does it say?
The San Remo Conference, 1922
The Golan Heights Law
the British mandate 1920-1946