In fact, the resolution does not at all mention east Jerusalem in particular, or Jerusalem in general. Nor does it specify exactly from which and how much territory Israel must withdraw. The article itself links to the resolution, which calls for: “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
The New York Times corrected this point three times in 2000. For example, the Aug. 4, 2000 Times correction stated:
An article on Aug. 19 about efforts by the American envoy Dennis Ross to revive Israeli-Palestinian talks misstated terms of United Nations Security Council resolutions passed after the 1967 Middle East war. While Resolution 242 called for Israel’s armed forces to withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” no resolution called for Israel to hand over all of east Jerusalem to a future Palestinian state.
Again on Sept. 6, 2000, The New York Times corrected:
An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel’s armed forces to withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.
U.N Security Resolution 242, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the 1967 war. While those territories include East Jerusalem, the resolution does not list the territories or specifically say forces must be withdrawn from all of them.
Like other Israeli leaders, Barkat rejects