In 2005 Wikipedia's first sentence called it “general principle proposed to resolve the arab-israeli conflict by which israel would relinquish control of par”. Today it says “legalistic interpretation of un security council resolution 242 which has been used as the basis of subsequent”.
Measured, not asserted. Every count, date and revision on this page was taken from Wikipedia's own history and checked against the live article. The words quoted are theirs.
Machine-checked against the full current article on 2026-08-02. In 2005 Wikipedia's first sentence called it “general principle proposed to resolve the arab-israeli conflict by which israel would relinquish control of par”. Today it says “legalistic interpretation of un security council resolution 242 which has been used as the basis of subsequent”.
We saved snapshots of this article over twenty years; you are reading the 2005 one. Red dashes: removed from Wikipedia since.Pale dots: rewritten; the numbered note shows what it says now.Red text: written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot.1 tap a number or a side note to jump between them
The opening as it read in 2005
Land for peace is a general principle proposed to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict by which Israel would relinquish control of part of the territories it conquered in 1967 in return for recognition by the Arab world. The formula appeared for the first time in UN Security Council Resolution 242 ; it has since then become the major guideline to American policy with regard to the conclusion of the conflict. The principle of Land for Peace was first used as the basis for Israel's peace treaty with Egypt in 1978, which included an Israeli retreat from the Sinai in exchange for economic assistance from the United States and a peace treaty from Egypt. The international community has approved of following the same principle for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip . In the Camp David Accords from 1978 , the establishment of a Palestinian autonomy is suggested; at this time however, Jordan was regarded as the official representative of the Palestinians. Numerous statements by Israeli officials indicate that at least part of the Israeli establishment wanted to follow a similar course with Jordan and the West Bank ; however Jordan withdrew its claims to the West Bank (subsequently signing a peace treaty with Israel with included only minor border adjustment); the principle however was chosen for Israel once more, for its negotiations with the PLO . The hand-over of some land in return for peaceful co-existence is a feature of most Proposals for a Palestinian state .1
This is Wikipedia's own text, saved in our repository. Their copy of it is revision 15942817.
The opening as it stood in 2010 7 passages from the previous snapshot no longer appear
Land for peace is an interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 which has formed the basis of subsequent Arab - Israeli peace making.The name Land for Peace is derived from the wording of the resolution's first operative paragraph which affirms that peace should include the application of two principles; Withdrawal of Israeli forces (Giving Up Land), and Termination of all claims or states of belligerency (Making Peace).Since the resolution stipulates that both principles should apply they can be viewed jointly as giving up land for peace, referred to more concisely as 'land for peace'.This interpretation is widely contested because it implies that Israeli withdrawal is linked to its neighbours' willingness to formally make peace.Competing interpretations of the resolution regard Israel as being obligated to withdraw unilaterally from all territories captured in 1967.Operative paragraph 1 of 242 reads as follows: 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 Israel 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; When Lord Caradon was asked about the concessions the Arab states would have to make to Israel as part of an overall settlement he said "Well, that's perfectly obvious if you read again the principles of 242, which have been accepted by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and in effect by Israel.The provision is that if there is an adequate withdrawal, all states in the area must be free to live within secure and recognized boundaries, free from force and threat of force.So it is an acceptance that Israel has a right to exist, just as the Palestinians have a right to their homeland, and have a right to exist.This is the essential bargain that we are proposing.It's not a new thing, it's been going since 1967.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 370849922.
The opening as it stood in 2015
Land for peace is an interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 which has formed the basis of subsequent Arab - Israeli peace making. The name Land for Peace is derived from the wording of the resolution's first operative paragraph which affirms that peace should include the application of two principles; Withdrawal of Israeli forces (Giving Up Land), and Termination of all claims or states of belligerency (Making Peace). Since the resolution stipulates that both principles should apply they can be viewed jointly as giving up land for peace, referred to more concisely as 'land for peace'. This interpretation is widely contested because it implies that Israeli withdrawal is linked to its neighbours' willingness to formally make peace. Competing interpretations of the resolution regard Israel as being obligated to withdraw unilaterally from all territories captured in 1967. Operative paragraph 1 of 242 reads as follows: 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 Israel 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; When in 1976 Lord Caradon was asked about the concessions the Arab states would have to make to Israel as part of an overall settlement he said "Well, that's perfectly obvious if you read again the principles of 242, which have been accepted by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and in effect by Israel. The provision is that if there is an adequate withdrawal, all states in the area must be free to live within secure and recognized boundaries, free from force and threat of force. So it is an acceptance that Israel has a right to exist, just as the Palestinians have a right to their homeland, and have a right to exist. This is the essential bargain that we are proposing. It's not a new thing, it's been going since 1967.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 662600199.
The opening as it stood in 2020
Land for peace is a legalistic interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 which has been used as the basis of subsequent Arab - Israeli peace making. The name Land for Peace is derived from the wording of the resolution's first operative paragraph which affirms that peace should include the application of two principles: Withdrawal of Israeli forces (Giving Up Land), and Termination of all claims or states of belligerency (Making Peace). Since the resolution stipulates that both principles should apply, they can be viewed jointly as giving up land for peace, referred to more concisely as 'land for peace'. This interpretation is widely contested because it implies that Israeli withdrawal is linked to its neighbours' willingness to formally make peace. Competing interpretations of the resolution regard Israel as being obligated to withdraw unilaterally from all territories captured in 1967. Operative paragraph 1 of Resolution 242 reads as follows: 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 Israel 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; In 1976, when Lord Caradon was asked about the concessions the Arab states would have to make to Israel as part of an overall settlement, he said "Well, that's perfectly obvious if you read again the principles of 242, which have been accepted by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and in effect by Israel. The provision is that if there is an adequate withdrawal, all states in the area must be free to live within secure and recognized boundaries, free from force and threat of force. So it is an acceptance that Israel has a right to exist, just as they would have a right to their homeland, and have a right to exist. This is the essential bargain that we are proposing. It's not a new thing, it's been going since 1967.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 931478729.
The opening as it stood on October 6, 2023
Land for peace is a legalistic interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 which has been used as the basis of subsequent Arab - Israeli peace making. The name Land for Peace is derived from the wording of the resolution's first operative paragraph which affirms that peace should include the application of two principles: Withdrawal of Israeli forces (Giving Up Land), and Termination of all claims or states of belligerency (Making Peace). Since the resolution stipulates that both principles should apply, they can be viewed jointly as giving up land for peace, referred to more concisely as 'land for peace'. This interpretation is widely contested because it implies that Israeli withdrawal is linked to its neighbours' willingness to formally make peace. Competing interpretations of the resolution regard Israel as being obligated to withdraw unilaterally from all territories captured in 1967. Operative paragraph 1 of Resolution 242 reads as follows: 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 Israel 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; In 1976, when Lord Caradon was asked about the concessions the Arab states would have to make to Israel as part of an overall settlement, he said "Well, that's perfectly obvious if you read again the principles of 242, which have been accepted by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and in effect by Israel. The provision is that if there is an adequate withdrawal, all states in the area must be free to live within secure and recognized boundaries, free from force and threat of force. So it is an acceptance that Israel has a right to exist, just as they would have a right to their homeland, and have a right to exist. This is the essential bargain that we are proposing. It's not a new thing, it's been going since 1967.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 1145480664.
The opening as it stood in 2025
Legal interpretation in the Arab-Israeli conflict Land for peace is a legalistic interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 which has been used as the basis of subsequent Arab–Israeli peace making . The name Land for Peace is derived from the wording of the resolution's first operative paragraph which affirms that peace should include the application of two principles: Withdrawal of Israeli forces (Giving Up Land), and Termination of all claims or states of belligerency (Making Peace). Since the resolution stipulates that both principles should apply, they can be viewed jointly as giving up land for peace, referred to more concisely as "land for peace". This interpretation is widely contested because it implies that Israeli withdrawal is linked to its neighbours' willingness to formally make peace. Competing interpretations of the resolution regard Israel as being obligated to withdraw unilaterally from all territories captured in 1967. Operative paragraph 1 of Resolution 242 reads as follows: 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 Israel 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; In 1976, when Lord Caradon was asked about the concessions the Arab states would have to make to Israel as part of an overall settlement, he said "Well, that's perfectly obvious if you read again the principles of 242, which have been accepted by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and in effect by Israel. The provision is that if there is an adequate withdrawal, all states in the area must be free to live within secure and recognized boundaries, free from force and threat of force. So it is an acceptance that Israel has a right to exist, just as they would have a right to their homeland, and have a right to exist. This is the essential bargain that we are proposing. It's not a new thing, it's been going since 1967.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 1296713325. This is our newest snapshot; the live article may have moved again since.
Today
In 2005 Wikipedia's first sentence called it “general principle proposed to resolve the arab-israeli conflict by which israel would relinquish control of par”. Today it says “legalistic interpretation of un security council resolution 242 which has been used as the basis of subsequent”. Read the current article and compare.
2005
2010
2015
2020
Oct '23
2025
Counts in the opening at each snapshot. Green: the word gained ground. Red: it was cut. Grey: no change.
What Wikipedia says this is
Every article opens by defining its subject. This one was redefined between 2005 and 2025.
Then
general principle proposed to resolve the arab-israeli conflict by which israel would relinquish control of par
Now
legalistic interpretation of un security council resolution 242 which has been used as the basis of subsequent
Struck red text is no longer in the article; dotted amber text was rewritten. Every revision id links to Wikipedia's copy; the text shown is our own saved copy. Data: /data. Wikipedia text is CC BY-SA; quoted for the record; not affiliated with Wikipedia.
