We've had this argument. When Resolution 242 was made a prerequisite in Oslo, there was a tacit understanding among the signatories that the
spirit – if not the letter – of the resolution – was that the Israelis would eventually withdraw to the pre-'67 borders. I was following the proceedings at the time; the PLO was adamant about it, the Israelis understood it, as did the Americans.
It's the Israelis who had backtracked because they had absolutely no intention of honouring it in the first place. OK, maybe Rabin was sincere, but certainly not the leaders that succeeded him, and definitely not Netyanahu. Of course there also Israeli apologists like yourself who like to play with semantics and insist that withdrawal from occupied land does not equate with withdrawal from
all occupied land.
-----
In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords", Netanyahu affirmed.