The preamble of the 1979 peace treaty reads, in part:
Convinced of the urgent necessity of the establishment of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338
It is interesting that the Israeli Government's web page devoted to the treaty shows a map of Israel clearly marking all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as part of Israel, without any sort of differentiation between these zones and what is generally regarded to be Israel proper - pre-1967 War Israel. The Egyptian government's page devoted to the treaty is currently down.
Security Council Resolution 242 is considered to be the originating document requiring Israel to relinquish its control, occupation and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza, and its original interpretation by everyone on the planet outside of the Israeli and (then) South African (apartheid) governments regarded all of the West Bank lands occupied in 1967 as just that - occupied. Soon after the adoption of UN Res. 242, - November 22, 1967, Dean Rusk, who was then U.S. Secretary of State, said:
There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I'm not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.
Since that time, many U.S. governments have sought to muddy the clarity of what 242 meant and means. How that reflects upon whether or not Israel is currently in violation of the Israel-Egypt pact has not been addressed by any of the many, many reports in the media about whether or not the incoming regime in Egypt might or might not honor it. It appears to be a moot point, as Israel is in very obvious violation of one of the most basic tenets of the pact and should therefore be seriously considered as having abandoned it already. The Palestine Papers clearly reveal that Israel has no leg to stand upon in defending their non-compliance with 242 and the peace pact itself.
As Rusk stated in 1967, regarding adherence to the spirit and letter of 242 and Israeli intransigence and outright deceptions, "[t]his situation could lead to real trouble in the future."