Resolution 242 was adopted after the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel was attacked by, and captured territory from, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
However, the resolution never mentions Jerusalem, nor does U.N. Resolution 242 call for a full withdrawal from territory captured but merely a withdrawal to "secure and recognized boundaries" that are to be negotiated by the parties concerned. Palestinian Arabs were not a party to the resolution.
Arthur Goldberg, the former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. (in 1967) who helped draft the resolution, testified in regard to the omission of Jerusalem from Resolution 242:
"I never described Jerusalem as occupied territory. Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem and this omission was deliberate."
In conclusion of the role the U.N. and international law may play in determining the future of Jerusalem, one may again quote Judge Lauterpacht:
"(i) The role of the U.N. in relation to the future of Jerusalem and the Holy Places is limited. In particular, the General Assembly has no power of disposition over Jerusalem and no right to lay down regulations for the Holy Places. The Security Council, of course, retains its power under Chapter VII of the Charter in relation to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and act of aggression, but these powers do not extend to the adoption of any general position regarding the future of Jerusalem and the Holy Places.
(ii) Israel's governmental measures in relation to Jerusalem - both New and Old - are lawful and valid. (iii) The future regulation of the Holy Places is a matter to be determined quite separately from the political administration of Jerusalem. Territorial internationalization of Jerusalem is dead - but the possibility of functional internationalization is not. The latter means, in effect, the recognition of the universal interest in the Holy Places situated in Jerusalem and the adoption of links between Israel and the world community to give formal expression to that interest."