The following study is a historiographical analysis of previous articles in academic journals discussing the U.N. Security Council resolution 242, which is a diplomatic and legally binding document, aimed at securing peace in the Middle East after the June War of 1967 between Israel and its neighboring Arab Countries. The study analyses various texts written by juridical and historical researchers, which discuss the resolution and its ability to generate a lasting peace in the Middle East. The problem lies in the linguistic features present in the resolution, more specifically in the lack of a definitive term regarding occupied territories in times of war. Various interpretations of the resolution give different answers, as some have interpreted it as obligating Israel to return all occupied territories, whilst others have interpreted it as guidelines, thus not legally binding Israel or any other involved actor to any specific actions in regards to the occupied territories. It is as befitting that this study is presented 50 years after the conflict arose, as it is telling that the discussion has failed to evolve during this time, with the same set of interpretations being relevant. The conflict is yet to be resolved, and this study presents various texts explaining and discussing the problematic elements of the resolution and international relations which have inhibited the peace process from finding a lasting conclusion.