text: levelled against his Government? What was his reply to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt, Mr. El-Zayyat, who simply asked him whether his Government recognized the principle of the non-acquisirion of territories by force? 62. Far from protesting against these accusations, far from offering us the slightest hint of evidence that the Zionist regime was not pursuing a policy of aggression and unilateral annexation of territories belonging to States whose integrity is guaranteed by the United Nations Charter, the representative of Israel more or less said the following: that resolution 242 (1967) was accepted by Israel, but that it was accepted because it creates a new situation, and he explained to us that that resolution did not mean the restitution of all the territories occupied after the June 1967 aggression. He also added that there was no rule or international principle to prevent changes through treaty of pre-existing and recognized frontiers. He repeated several times subsequently that recognized boundaries were not inviolable. 6 63. But then everything is clear. That is why Israel stubbornly demands at any price that the Arab countries come to the negotiating table as vanquished countries. G4. Israel refuses to subscribe to the principle of tile non-acquisition of territory by force. 65. Israel refuses to give the African wise men the only proof of good will which they really need: and that was that Israel should state that it was not interested in the annexation of Arab territory. 66. Israel refuses to give a favourable response to Mr. Jarring’s aide-mCmoire of 8 February 1971 because Israel cannot accept the return to the internationaI frontiers that existed before the aggression. 67. Lastly, Israel interprets resolution 242 (1967) as not implying the restitution of all territories occupied by force, Israel thus wants secure and recognized boundaries, but it 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic or political discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, specifically focusing on the issue of territorial acquisition and the recognition of international borders. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a high-level political or diplomatic context. The text does not mention any specific economic, environmental, or social issues that would be relevant to the categories listed.