As a preemptive strike on thousands of Egyptian troops massed at their border after Egypt kicked out the UN Peacekeeping force and closed the Suez Canal (a violation of international treaty), yes, it was completely defensive.
Fact is, they still started it. Israel was the first to declare war.
It doesn't matter the current state of affairs. 10, 20, 30 years in the future, most if all of these conflicts will be resolved, and some Arab countries still could be hostile toward Israel. If they attack, and Israel is back to the pre-1967 lines, they would be cut in half almost immediately if that nation found an ally in a theoretical Palestinian nation.
The conflict has been raging for 60 years, and I doubt a solution can be idealistically chanced upon so fast. Furthermore, all those statements you make about Arab hostility are just hypothetical. A bit like playing a guessing parlor game. Checks and balances throuh a web of alliances have worked for centuries, the most famous would be Bismark and his magic political wand.
Plus there is precedent for the losing side in a war to lose land. Have you heard of the Treaty of Versailles? How about almost any other treaty in existence where the losing side lost land? The Treaty of Paris? Yeah, Britain lost a TON of land in 1783. A whole 13 colonies. And how about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mexico lost what is now a few American states!
I don't need a lecture on history seeing that . I have pointed out earlier on how international law has changed its view on conquest, and I don't intend to rehash what I clearly stated earlier when all the exaples you gave were before such a change in law, hence nullifying such examples.
One of the things many apologists claim is that Nasser created a casus belli by closing the straits of Tiran, so therefore Israel was justified in attacking Egypt. Several things need pointed out here. First that only 5% of Israel trade was at risk from this so called clo
sure (even the record demonstrates the Egyptians rarely enforced it). The major issue for Israel was oil from Iran (believe or not) and that could easily be sequestered through Haifa. Furthermore the navigable channel of the straits is only a mile from Egypt's shore, well within its territorial waters, and no state has ever been deemed to be enforcing a blockade of foreign shipping in its own territorial waters. Also as Egypt and Israel had been in a state of war since 1948, Egypt was well within its rights to prevent shipping to a belligerent state. Not that it had much effect, because as we've seen rarely did israel use the straits and infact in the previous two years no Israeli flagged vessel used the port of Eliat.
Furthermore the vast majority of Israel's commercial trade used Mediterranean ports. Now Egypt had refused to sign the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Territorial Sea and Conitguous Zone because it didn't agree with the defitnion of 'strait'. Therefore Egypt was not a signatory, because as commonly understood only a passage between two areas of high seas is a strait, whereas the Straits of Tiran lead into the Gulf of Aqaba. The US secretary of State at that time John Foster Dulles agreed on the '
lausibility from the standpoint of international law' with regard to Egypt's stance. Arthur Dean, who headed the US delegation at the Geneva Conference admitted that this was a new interpretation directly aimed at the Straits of Tiran. Therefore the general view was that the convention did not reflect customary law. Even if it was agreed that Israel had a right to use the straits (even though some authorities agreed and others did not), it did not have the right to an armed attack to resolve the issue when there was still peaceful avenues to exhaust. That Israel chose not to pursue these peaceful avenues demonstrates that its attack on Egypt was not defensive and was indeed illegal.
Also U Thant acknowledged that Nasser wanted to restart the Egyptin-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission(EIMAC) which was established as part of the agreements ending the 1948 war. Yet this became dead in the water after Israel unilaterally withdrew during the Suez, and whilst Nasser demonstrated willingness to reconvene it, Israel rejected all such approaches. Israel's belligerence was recalled later by U Thant
'if only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed; war might have been averted'
Another senior UN official, Brian Urquhart, when referring to Israel's refusal to a two week moratorium in the straits (which Nasser agreed to), writes in his memoir â"
'Israel, no doubt having decided on military action, turned down U Thant's ideas.'
Also the then US Secretary of State Dean Rusk recalls the cycnial surprise attack launched by Israel, instead of trying the diplomatic route, which nasser was open to â"
'when the Israelis launched the surprise offensive. they attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian Vice President would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opeing the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility'
Now lets look at what the Israeli leaders admittedâ"
"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory." (Mordechai Bentov )
"The danger of Israel's extermination was hardly present before the Six-day war." (General Yeshayahu Gavish)
"I do not believe Nasser wanted war. the two divisions he sent into the Sinai on May 14th would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (General Rabin )
"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger."(Chaim Herzog)
"In June l967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (Menachem Begin)
How about the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt? I never said that they gave all of the land back to the Pals. I have just said that Israel has given up the majority of what they have taken in defensive wars.
The Sinai was already part of Egypt which the Israelis took, having no claim to it.
Currently, the Muslim Brotherhood is standing to take control of the Egyptian Parliament. They don't exactly have fuzzy, warm feelings with Israel.
That doesn't mean that war will break out given all practicalities.
Do I have to bring the quote up again?
Israel opened up part of its archives in the 1980s for investigation by historians. This coincided with the emergence of various Israeli historians, called New Historians, who favored a more critical analysis of Israel's history. The most famous scholar of this group, Benny Morris, concludes that Jewish military attacks were the main direct cause of the exodus, followed by Arab fear due to the fall of a nearby town, Arab fear of impending attack, and expulsions.
Also,
Plan D.
Source