Israil oversteps the mark

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a much longer time than that, at least since the begining of the 1900's if your going to advance the theory of the Democratic Peace.

Not really

Great Power wars have had very high frequencies until 1945, really (look at the 1800s). That isn't even mentioning wars between smaller power or colonial wars.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Great Power wars have had very high frequencies until 1945,

Is this relative to the number of dyads in the international system at the time?

You really aren't going to tell me that war isn't a rare phenomena when I've already read several papers from Democratic Peace theorists taking the criticism seriously, are you?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Drake, there was a story in the LAtimes just a few days ago about how much oil the U.S. inports from OPEC and other sources. Saudi-Arabia alone stood for more than 10%.

Ok, I looked up some figures. America imports 50% of its total oil supply. Of this 50%, a quarter come from the Persian Gulf. Doing the calculations, you find that America get 12% of its oil from the Persian Gulf, mainly Saudi Arabia.

http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/energy/stat1.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/default.htm

Europe imports most of their oil from Norway and Russia, IIRC. (plus domestic producation in Britain).

Europe imports 75% of its total oil supply. 30% of its imports are from the Persian Gulf. This means that Europe gets 22% of its total oil supply from the Persian Gulf. These results are a little skewed, however, by the fact that they cover all of Europe. Some European countries, like Britain and Norway, produce a lot of oil domestically and have relatively little import dependency. France and Germany, OTOH, are almost totally dependent on imports. Germany imports almost 100% of its oil. France, Germany and other European nations are more dependent on Mid East oil than the pan-European stats show. Now consider which European nations have been the most vocal opponents of Israel. Anyone see a correlation?

http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/en/fa_12_en.html

If Israel stops the occupation and solves the right of return, then I might be convinced that Israel is a tiny country trying to defend itself (depending on cirumstance, of course.).

You're basically asking Israel to commit suicide before you will believe that it is defending itself. Like MtG said, please break out a map and actually study the strategic situation Israel is in before you make absurd claims like this. Israel cannot defend the 1948 borders and anyone with some real knowledge of the subject knows this.

Now, why should the germans live with that but the palestinians shouldn't? Well, how about that the germans started WW2, but the palestinains never caused the jews to flood palestine, nor did the palestinians cause the founding of Israel. That the arab neighbours went to war in 1948 I don't hold against them - The U.N. happily gave away land that wasn't theirs to give away, and the arabs only tried to retian what belonged to them.

My point was that the Arabs started a war (like the Germans), lost the war (like the Germans), but then refused to accept a loss of territory (unlike the Germans) and refused to take in the Arab refugees created by the war they started (unlike the Germans). Can't you see how Arab actions after 1948 have deepened the misery of the Palestinian people? Israel isn't the only wrong party in this situation. As Chegitz said, both the Israelis and the Arabs have treated the Pals like ****.

[CyberGnu]

Natan:

'monolithic'? Care to explain what you mean?

EDIT: cut and paste failed... The whole thing about china. sorry about that.

Ideologically, yes. Are you actually saying that China should be allowed to invade other countries because they have a large population?

But I'm not advocating nuking the entire china at once. The best would be to convince China that retreat is the best option. If they won't do it, nuke one city. Keep it up until they retreat. Exactly how it was done in Japan, 1945.

I'm gonna try for the six hundred billionth time to make you understand:

Aggression is bad. Aggression should not be allowed as a means to expand.


Partly this is ideological, I believe theft is wrong. And partly it is practical, in the same sense that I don't belive ransom should ever be paid for hostages. This is a policy that has worked very well in the U.S., kidnappings and hijackings are very rare.

I agree, but I don't even consider state's borders to have much moral value.

Interesting... So, it is just nations property you don't respect, or does that carry over to peoples property too? Do you have a car yet? Would you mind if I took it?

You know, they also agreed (UN declaration of human rights) that every person has a right to two weeks of paid vacation. Yet very few countries offer that right, are they all evil for violating the international community's will and their own agreements?

Well, there are violations and violations. Violating a speed limit is a violation, but it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. I think this was a very cheap shot aimed at trying to avoid agreeing that a world without war is better than a world with war... In line with the tradiational arguing techniques in the ME threads, where the Israeli apologists will carry on on odd tangents until the pro-justice people tire...

Not true.
- Morocco seized Western Sahara against its inhabitants will.
- China seized a portion of Kashmir and also seized Tibet
- Massive border shifts (such as in Poland) throughout eastern europe.
None of these have been punished or even condemed by the international community.
Also, how do you decide what ethnic groups deserve nations?

Don't know about the first, and the second is true only because of practical realities outlined earlier. Polend was WW2, right?

But enough with the pointless nitpicking!!!!!!!!!

Yes or no, do you think that the world is a better place because of the resolutions passed after WW2 where the global community agreed that aggression is not a viable way to expand?


Ethinic groups are quite different. I suport each ethinc group that wants their own state to have one, but not at the expense of another one. If the swedish samis want their own land, well it would have to be in northern sweden, not in downtown manhattan...

That has nothing to do with expanding borders... That is ending oppression.


In the armisite agreement between France and Germany, article 3 states that the Germany had full rights and powers over french terriroty and citizens. Without a democratically elected goverment of their own, France did not have ANY legitimate goverment.

Let me make it simple for you: France was an occupied nation.


I see what you mean about the french resistance fighters, but I still don't agree with you. Again, if Hitler had never started a holocaust, the french resistance fighters would still be celebrated as heroes. Are they MORE celebtrated because of the atrocities Nazi germany carried out? Of course they are... But that is not the point.

How about the mujaheddin of afganistan and their struggle against russia? 1980 russia didn;t carry out genocide, yet the mujaheddin are celebtrated as freedom fighters.

And before you waste time trying to find nitpicking examples of how one mujahedding fighter was hated by everyone for personal hygiene or something similarly relevant, try to see the central issue: resistance fighters are celebrated ebcause they resist occupation, not because they oppose the ideology of the occupiers.


Not sure how you concluded that changing a border is worse than killing millions of people... I said they are both bad, but they are different crimes.

I know of very few wars in which both sides
did not brand each other 'evil.'

Which is pretty much my point... BTW, I'd like you too keep that in mind next time we stumble over issues such as 'palestinian text books' etc.

so, you are basically saying 'If jews take land, it is OK, but if jews lose land, it
is not OK'. That is pretty much what I figured.



No, I'm not arguing that Jews should have a right of return to Poland or Iraq.

Which has nothing to do with the question... I'm assuming you don't approve of the right of return either, which goes together with the whole disrespect for legal property.

But my question has nothing to do with the right of return.

You apparently think that if a nation is trong enough to take land from another, it is morally justified in keeping it. I'm just curious whether you are honest enough to allow that to go both ways: If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Aggression is bad. Aggression should not be allowed as a means to expand.

You still haven't convinced me that Israel is the aggressor in all this.

If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?

They've tried to do just that three times in the past 50 years! How is Israel the agressor when all the Arab nations around it keep trying to invade and dissolve it? As for the morality of an Arab invasion, I think it's really irrelevant. I don't think that the Jews would be too worried about moral justifications while the Arabs are killing them and pushing them into the sea.

Moral justifications are bull****.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Israel cannot defend the 1948 borders and anyone with some real knowledge of the subject knows this.

This flies in the face of history and elementary logic. If Israel was unable to defend those borders, then Israel would have ceased to exist. Since Israel still exists, it, must, therefore, have been able to defend those borders.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This flies in the face of history and elementary logic. If Israel was unable to defend those borders, then Israel would have ceased to exist. Since Israel still exists, it, must, therefore, have been able to defend those borders.

Note the present tense I used, Che. Israel cannot defend the 1948 borders in the present day. I know you're a smart guy, so surely you know that military technology has changed a bit in the last 50 years. If you know of a way that Israel can return to the 1948 borders and still defend itself against a modern Arab army, I'd love to hear it. I'm sure the IDF would love to hear about it as well.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
They've tried to do just that three times in the past 50 years! How is Israel the agressor when all the Arab nations around it keep trying to invade and dissolve it?

One quote from an insignificant leader of an insignificant military force gets blown up in to the entire reason that the Arab reasons ever have anything to do with Israel.

1948 was a war between Israel and the Arabs states, and the Arabs states with each other, ove the the division of Palestine. On May 15, 1948, Israeli troops were already well beyond the UN designated Jewish territory, Making Israel one of the agressors in this war. Israel, and all of the Arab states, launched a war of agression against Palestine.

Consider that nearly half of Egypt's army in Palestine was off fighting the Jordanians, or that the Lebanese merely occupied the Arab designated territory of West Galilee, without attack the Israelis at all. Jordan only fought the the Israelis where they were attacked by them. Both Syria and Egypt did attack the Israelis, but the Syrians were trying to catpure land they considered theirs (according to French maps). Only the Egyptians made any effort to attack the Israelis. Furthmore, after the first truce, it was always Israel who initiated hostilities against the Arabs. They even assassinated the UN ambassador to the region who had come up with a new peace plan.

1967 was a War of Israeli Aggression. Israel had been encroaching on the nutral zone between Israel and Syria for years, and had been driving Arab farmers from the area, replacing them with Jewish immigrants. After some *** for tat shelling between Syria and Israel, Israel begain threatening Syria with invasion and having it's government toppled if it didn't aquience to Israeli land grabbing, i.e., stop fighting back.

Syria, which had a military alliance with Egypt, asked for help, fearing imminent invasion. Egypt then created a military situation which was designed to get Israel to back down, since it would have been a two front war. Instead, Israel quickly shifted and launched a surprise attack against the more poweful country, then tricked Jordan into getting into the war (by sending their airforce at Jordan, Jordan responded with it's own mobilization which gave Israel the pretext for attack), then dealt with the weakest country, Syria.

Only the 1973 War can be said to have been started by the Arabs alone, and in this case, the Arabs had been trying to negotiate peace with Israel two years prior. Sadat first stated his land for peace deal in 1971, but of course the man who was trust worthy in 1977 wasn't trust-worthy in 1971. In any even, since Israel was occupying Arab terriroty, it was a legitimate war of self-defence started by the Arabs, under international law. They were trying to drive out the foreign occupiers.

Israel has been the most aggressive state in the region since 1948. The actualy historical facts do not support a belief that Israel has only been defending itself.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Natan:

'monolithic'? Care to explain what you mean?

"Arabs" are a diverse bunch, and as che pointed out, their goals were not just to liberate "their" land, they wanted to dominate and rule over the Palestinians. They succeeded, at least in the short term.

Ideologically, yes. Are you actually saying that China should be allowed to invade other countries because they have a large population?

I am saying that people shouldn't be exterminated because their dictatorial government is bad.

But I'm not advocating nuking the entire china at once. The best would be to convince China that retreat is the best option. If they won't do it, nuke one city. Keep it up until they retreat. Exactly how it was done in Japan, 1945.

How many people would you kill the first time around? One million? Ten million?

Interesting... So, it is just nations property you don't respect, or does that carry over to peoples property too? Do you have a car yet? Would you mind if I took it?

I guess the difference between you and me is that I don't view nations as people - for example, I don't think anyone should be taken to task for murdering the Soviet nation, or for crippling the German nation by lopping of its Prussian and Silesian legs. I think of nations as being made of people, but not people themselves. Sort of like families. Do you generally approve of killing the families of car thieves?

Well, there are violations and violations. Violating a speed limit is a violation, but it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. I think this was a very cheap shot aimed at trying to avoid agreeing that a world without war is better than a world with war...

I don't understand why it's worse when nations violate their agreements to respect each others borders than when they violate their agreements to respect human rights. I don't think that's the position of the UN (the organization responsible for both documents) either.

Don't know about the first

So let's just not discuss it since you don't know anything about it? :Confused:

and the second is true only because of practical realities outlined earlier.

The international community could protest against China's occupation of these territories without a nuclear war (or any war) occuring, just as the UN can criticize Israel without that country resorting to its nuclear arsenal.

Polend was WW2, right?

But I'm not just reffering to the land it got from Germany, I'm also reffering to the land taken from Poland in the East, and the annexation and colonization of the baltic states.

But enough with the pointless nitpicking!!!!!!!!!

You made a claim, specifically, that many/most people approve of the French Resistance because it fought to liberate its country. I responded by providing examples of other groups which fought to liberate their countries but which are not approved of or celeberated/praised. Do you believe that all evidence brought against point is inherently nit-picking? Would you prefer me to stick out my tongue, or maybe just to say "NO! My idea is the correct one, and don't bring any nit-picky facts or examples to show otherwise?"

Yes or no, do you think that the world is a better place because of the resolutions passed after WW2 where the global community agreed that aggression is not a viable way to expand?

I don't see how the world is better off for it in any concrete way, especially if that principle makes us lax about human rights abuses.

Ethinic groups are quite different. I suport each ethinc group that wants their own state to have one, but not at the expense of another one. If the swedish samis want their own land, well it would have to be in northern sweden, not in downtown manhattan...

1) There are pretty much no areas on earth which are completely ethnically homogenous, so someone's going to get disenfranchised.
2) How do you define "Ethnic group?" Could say, Irish-Americans declare an independent state in Boston? Maybe Hassidic Jews could make Borough Park an independent country?

That has nothing to do with expanding borders... That is ending oppression.

So why should it be restricted to ethnic groups? Let's say that the citizens of (just for example) Eastern Afghanistan had decided they want to be independent, not because they are ethnically oppressed, but because the Taliban were opressing everyone politically? And if they can be independent, shouldn't they also be allowed to be part of Pakistan?

In the armisite agreement between France and Germany, article 3 states that the Germany had full rights and powers over french terriroty and citizens. Without a democratically elected goverment of their own, France did not have ANY legitimate goverment.

So only democratically elected government's are legitimate? The United States maintained full rights and powers over Germany, was that country's government a puppet government?

Let me make it simple for you: France was an occupied nation.

Repeating your original claim isn't really a simplification. Redundancy is not synonymous with clarity.

I see what you mean about the french resistance fighters, but I still don't agree with you. Again, if Hitler had never started a holocaust, the french resistance fighters would still be celebrated as heroes. Are they MORE celebtrated because of the atrocities Nazi germany carried out? Of course they are... But that is not the point.

How about the mujaheddin of afganistan and their struggle against russia? 1980 russia didn;t carry out genocide, yet the mujaheddin are celebtrated as freedom fighters.

And before you waste time trying to find nitpicking examples of how one mujahedding fighter was hated by everyone for personal hygiene or something similarly relevant, try to see the central issue: resistance fighters are celebrated ebcause they resist occupation, not because they oppose the ideology of the occupiers.

The Afghans were celeberated because the Russians were treating them badly. It didn't amount to full blown genocide, but they did use chemical weapons, scattered land mines everywhere, and did some other rather nasty things. Furthermore, they were trying to impose the rather evil Soviet system on the Afghans. As I've pointed out, there are numerous examples of "liberation" movements which are not celeberated at all but are rather reviled, so I don't think fighting for "liberation" is what gains a group international standing. "Liberation" groups which fight against democratic countries are rarely celeberated. Anyone who tries to dismember a totalitarian regime for whatever reason is generally remembered well.

Not sure how you concluded that changing a border is worse than killing millions of people... I said they are both bad, but they are different crimes.

Well you said that the border change should be fought with all means necessary including extermination, but that killing of millions of people within the 1945 borders of a country should be met with non-violent pressures.

Which is pretty much my point... BTW, I'd like you too keep that in mind next time we stumble over issues such as 'palestinian text books' etc.

Your point is that demonization is good when done by your side but bad when done by another. Israel will of necessity create a Holocaust, but contrary to their repeated stated intentions and actions, Arabs never intended to harm Israel or its population, just to start "a hugging war." And that view is rubbish.

You apparently think that if a nation is trong enough to take land from another, it is morally justified in keeping it. I'm just curious whether you are honest enough to allow that to go both ways: If it is morally just for Israel to occupy land, would it be moreally just for the arab nations to invade and dissolve Israel?

No, and that's not the question. The question is, if they dissolved Israel and expelled its population, returned the Palestinians (or brought in anyone else) and set up a regime with some respect for human rights, should the Israelis' grandchildren return fifty years later to wage war and demand a return to the previous borders? I'd say generally no.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If you know of a way that Israel can return to the 1948 borders and still defend itself against a modern Arab army, I'd love to hear it. I'm sure the IDF would love to hear about it as well.

There are five modern armies in the Middle East. Two of them are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both of whom have their 1948 borders with Israel. A third is Jordan, which has surrendered its 1948 borders. A fourth is Turkey, which has no border with Israel, and has no quarrel with them. The fifth is Israel itself. Furthermore, Israel is generally recognized as having the best equipped, best trained army in the world.

Anyway, unless Israel is prepared to incorporate the whole of Palestine, they will have to return to their old borders, more or less. The 10 percent of land that they would permanently annex won't change the military situation, though the 10 percent of land that they would temporarily keep (in perpetuity) might.

It's a smoke and mirrors argument, no substance.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
On May 15, 1948, Israeli troops were already well beyond the UN designated Jewish territory, Making Israel one of the agressors in this war. Israel, and all of the Arab states, launched a war of agression against Palestine.

You know damn well that the Arabs never agreed to the UN partition. They didn't want the Jews to have any territory at all and started a war because of it. Yet you seem to hold it against the Jews for not abiding to an agreement that their enemies never agreed to or respected. That's not hypocritical at all, is it?

And how did any party, Arab or Israeli, launch a war against Palestine, a state that has never existed?

Jordan only fought the the Israelis where they were attacked by them.

Jordan has always been the most respectable of all the Arab powers in the region. This makes their ill-fated entry into the Six Day War all the more tragic. The whole region would be better off today if the West Bank was still in Jordanian hands...

Both Syria and Egypt did attack the Israelis, but the Syrians were trying to catpure land they considered theirs (according to French maps). Only the Egyptians made any effort to attack the Israelis.

Funnily enough, these are the two powers who have posed the biggest threat to Israel in the years after 1948. I think their intentions have been clear for years...

1967 was a War of Israeli Aggression.

Bull****. Show me a legitimate source for any of the info you listed after this and maybe I'll buy into your argument more. Right now you're just flying in the face of everything I've ever read on the subject. Nasser made a huge miscalculation, but that's what you get when you listen to the Soviets. The Israeli's had every reason to think that the Arabs were about to strike.

Only the 1973 War can be said to have been started by the Arabs alone, and in this case, the Arabs had been trying to negotiate peace with Israel two years prior. Sadat first stated his land for peace deal in 1971, but of course the man who was trust worthy in 1977 wasn't trust-worthy in 1971.

Nice attempt to make a suprise attack on the holiest day in the Jewish religion seem like Israel's fault...

In any even, since Israel was occupying Arab terriroty, it was a legitimate war of self-defence started by the Arabs, under international law. They were trying to drive out the foreign occupiers.

If you use this logic, exactly what wouldn't the Arabs be justified in doing? Since all of Israel can be considered to be occupied by infidels, would it be legitimate for the Arabs to drive the Jews into the sea?

Israel has been the most aggressive state in the region since 1948. The actualy historical facts do not support a belief that Israel has only been defending itself.

I'm not going to say that Israel hasn't been aggressive in its actions toward its neighbors. I think, however, that this aggression has always been directed toward the ultimate goal of defending Israel. If Israel wanted "lebensraum", why did they give back the Sinai? Why didn't they push on during the Six Day's war? They could've take all of Jordan if they had wanted to. I think that it is clear that all Israel has ever wanted is defensible borders. Can you really expect anything different from a nation surrounded by 100 million hostile opponents?

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There are five modern armies in the Middle East. Two of them are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both of whom have their 1948 borders with Israel. A third is Jordan, which has surrendered its 1948 borders. A fourth is Turkey, which has no border with Israel, and has no quarrel with them. The fifth is Israel itself. Furthermore, Israel is generally recognized as having the best equipped, best trained army in the world.

Anyway, unless Israel is prepared to incorporate the whole of Palestine, they will have to return to their old borders, more or less. The 10 percent of land that they would permanently annex won't change the military situation, though the 10 percent of land that they would temporarily keep (in perpetuity) might.

It's a smoke and mirrors argument, no substance.

Che, if you seriously can't see the effects that 50 years of change in weapons technology has had on Israel's strategic situation, then I don't even think it is worth talking to you. I expected better from you.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Che, if you seriously can't see the effects that 50 years of change in weapons technology has had on Israel's strategic situation, then I don't even think it is worth talking to you. I expected better from you.

Which countries are still enemies of Israel? Syria, for one. Well, Syria could hit Israel easily without the Golan, and would get destroyed by Israel as a result. It is a fairly weak country, heavily reliant on old Soviet technology. Israel would be in Damascus within hours. That leaves what other country that Israel has a border with? . . . Lebabon, which is already at the 1948 borders.

The other countries with which Israel is still at war share no border with Israel. If Iraq were going to launch an attack against Israel, it would have to go through it's enemy Syria, though Jordan, which would not agree to such an attack, or Saudi Arabia, which would result in a trouncing by US forces, if the Israelis left anything for them to do.

Lybia would have to go through Egypt, and isn't capable of it. Tunisia and Algera and Morroco have even farther to go. The Gulf States don't have the forces, Yemen doesn't have the forces, and the Sudan would have to go through Egypt.

So, who is the great Arab threat that Israel must illegally hold on to Palestinian land in order to protect themselves? Only Iraq and Syria are marginal threats, and they would be woefully outmatched.

I have yet to see any credible explanation of the nature of the threat to Israel that is more significant with a Palestinian state incorporating the entire West Bank and Gaza strip.

So let's think of some scenarios. Iraq moves troops in to Palestine. Well, first they've have to get there, which means they'll be seen moving, which means the Israelis will know about it, which means the Israelis will invade the West Bank, before the Iraqis get there, as well as bombing the Iraqi columns on the highway in whatever thrid country was foolish enough to allow it passage.

Syria decides to attack. This has nothing to do with the West Bank. The strategic situation as it now exists is unchanged. Egypt decides to attack. They are at their 1948 borders already, so the strategic situation is unchanged.

The Arab world gangs up on Israel, again. given the history of the region, this is unlikely to happen. This is the only scenario in which Israel would be f*cked because they gave up the Territories. But, let's face it. That tiny sliver of land isn't really a defence if every Arab country decides they're gonna pound Israel. Israel's military strength, however is, as well as it's nukes.

The strategic threat of giving up the Territories is a non-issue. The threat exists already, and 40-50 miles isn't going to make a difference.

[DinoDoc]

Che, the 48 borders are a nonissue. It quite simply isn't going to happen and even the Arabs realize it. You'll notice that they didn't ask for it in thier peace offer.

Could someone explain to me why the Palestinians have a right to the territory of the West Bank? According to the history I've seen, it was Jordanian territory before the ceeded it to Isreal. Was it even included in the 48 partition?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You know damn well that the Arabs never agreed to the UN partition. They didn't want the Jews to have any territory at all and started a war because of it. Yet you seem to hold it against the Jews for not abiding to an agreement that their enemies never agreed to or respected. That's not hypocritical at all, is it?

So the fighting between Egypt and Jordan was just an elaborate ruse to trick historians into believing that they really weren't out to committ genocide?

Prior to the day the war started, Israel had already occupied territory outside the area they claimed (which was far in excess of the land they actually owned). This means that Israel was already invading Palestinian lands.

I'm not holding it against the Jews for not abaiding by a non-agreement. I'm pointing out the actual history, to skewer the myth that Israel was an innocent victim of the Arabs. They were just as much an aggressor at the start of hostilities. And following the first truce (the fifth finally held after the UN threatened to intervene), they were the only aggressor in Palestine.

The actual history of the 1948 war does not support the myth that Israel was just minding its own business and the entire Arab world ganged up on it.

And how did any party, Arab or Israeli, launch a war against Palestine, a state that has never existed?

It wasn't a state. That doesn't mean that it wasn't invaded by all sides.

Show me a legitimate source for any of the info you listed after this and maybe I'll buy into your argument more. Right now you're just flying in the face of everything I've ever read on the subject. Nasser made a huge miscalculation, but that's what you get when you listen to the Soviets. The Israeli's had every reason to think that the Arabs were about to strike.

First off, the Soviets very likely believed that Israel was about to attack. Despite Western rhetoric, the Soviets weren't big on having their allies start wars. After all, up until that point, Israel had shown no inclination not to attack its neighbors.

Second, Nassar had just finished losing a war in Yemen. Unless he was an idiot, which no one says he was, he know that Egypt was in no shape to fight a new war.

And remember, not only did the Israelis attack all of their neighbors, they also attacked an American warship. Despite Israel claims that they thought they were attacking an Egyptian horse carrier (which looked nothing like the Liberty and which was also flying a giant US flag), they knew damn well whom they were attacking.

I'll give you a source later. I'm too lazy to write it all down now.

If you use this logic, exactly what wouldn't the Arabs be justified in doing? Since all of Israel can be considered to be occupied by infidels, would it be legitimate for the Arabs to drive the Jews into the sea?

Was the West Bank, the Golan, and the Sinai part of Israel or part of Arab countries? Since Israel has returned the Sinai, and no country recongizes Israel's annexation of the Golan, and Israel doesn't claim the West Bank, we can only conclude that Israel was occupying the territory of sovreign states. Since they were doing so, those states were legitimately able to use force to try and clear their lands of foreign troops. It's international law.

Destroying Israel would not be a legitimate use of foce, even if Arab countries claim Israel has no right to exist. Israel is a recognized member of the international community, and has right to exist under international law . . . at it's pre-1967 borders.

If Israel wanted "lebensraum", why did they give back the Sinai?

Israel couldn't invade Lebabnon and push out the PLO while it was still at war with Egypt and occupying the Sinai. It needed a safe back area, and only reluctantly gave up the Sinai. As soon as the peace treaty was signed in 1977, Israel attacked Lebanon. Carter yanked Israel's leash, and they had to withdraw, but five years later, just as they were withdrawing from the Sinai, (and with a new American president) they again invaded Lebanon, killing more than 20,000 people.

Why didn't they push on during the Six Day's war? They could've take all of Jordan if they had wanted to.

Look at the problem they have now, having to guard over three million Arabs. Multiply that by all of Jordan. That's why they didn't keep going. The Israelis aren't stupid. They don't bite off more than they can handle.

I think that it is clear that all Israel has ever wanted is defensible borders. Can you really expect anything different from a nation surrounded by 100 million hostile opponents?

It has always been more than able to defend its borders.