to impose their will through the two great Powers and through the four permanent members of the Security Council. They tried to pressure Israel through ad hoc committees, through special committees and advisory groups and through demands for time-tables, calendars and guidelines contrary to Israel’s legitimate interests. The Arab States apparently did not wish to recognize that, after 25 years of siege and embattlement and gigantic burdens and vicissitudes, Israel is not a country that would yield to coercion. 10s. If the experience of the last few years has demon- strated an incontrovertible fact, it is that there can be no imposition of a solution from the outside. If there is a message to be retained from that experience, it is that Israel will not be drawn into any process that would introduce third Powers and their own differences, whether as members of committees or participants in consulting groups, into a conflict which only the parties themselves can settle. Such processes would render the situation even more complex than it is, and Israel will not prejudice its search for understanding and agreement with its neighbours by the deliberate injection of additional complicating factors. 106. Another fundamental premise that emerges from the experience of recent years is that Israel will under no circumstances relinquish its right under international law to have the boundary of peace established for the first time in the Middle East through negotiation and agreement; nor will Israel acquiesce in any other change in the substance, balance or interpretation of resolution 242 (1967). Egypt’s attempt to tamper with resolution 242 (1967), and es- pecially to exclude determination of secure and recognized boundaries from the process of agreement between the parties, has been the main obstacle to progress in the search for peace. 107. The purpose of resolution 242 (1967) is to establish 
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the political and diplomatic efforts to resolve a conflict, specifically the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The language used is formal and official, suggesting that it may be an excerpt from a government document or a diplomatic statement. The text mentions international law, resolutions, and the actions of countries, which further supports this hypothesis.

**Category**
International trade, Politics