Mactosh:
Israel had not been attacked when it seized the territory in 1967, (the casus belli then was Egyptian blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba) and in fact had created a confrontation in the Golan area as a pretext to strike against Syria about 2 months before. 6 defending Migs fell that day, one in the center of Damscus, remind you of anything?
whether israel's 1967 attack on egypt was or was not legal under international law, given the massing of troops on the border, the marching of more troops from other countries towards israel, and the announced intent of their governments to go to war, has been debated for 40 years now. unfortunately for your theory, however, that resulted in the capture of the sinai, however, which in fact was returned to egypt as soon as a peace treaty was signed, despite that being delayed by years.
unfortunately for your theory again, however, the capture fo the west bank was as a result of Jordan attacking Israel:
"We are engaged in defensive fighting on the Egyptian sector, and we shall not engage ourselves in any action against Jordan, unless Jordan attacks us. Should Jordan attack Israel, we shall go against her with all our might."
- Message from Prime Minister Eshkol to King Hussein June 5, 1967, transmitted through the Chief of Staff of UNTSO
So what happened next?
"On the morning of June 5, Jordanian forces made thrusts in the area of Jerusalem, occupying Government House used as the headquarters for the UN observers and shelled the city. Units in Qalqiliya fired in the direction of Tel-Aviv. The Royal Jordanian Air Force attacked Israeli airfields."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War"
There is absolutely no doubt about that. Israel was prepared to return the territory as part of a treaty, as is customary in all similar conflicts, but there followed, of course, the famous Khartoum Resolutions of the Arab nations, featuring the three Nos: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it", leaving israel holding the bag, as it were; the welfare of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza being sacrificed in order to leave them as a permanent thorn in Israel's side. Again, when Sadat saw fit to sign a treaty with Israel, the Sinai was returned; Egypt didn't want Gaza back. Jordan maintained official claim to the West Bank until 1988, in fact.
so; in 1967 and for decades following, can't return the west bank to jordan, because they won't negotiate, sign a treaty, or even recognize israel. israel can't give the west bank to the country of Palestine, because there is no country of Palestine, and this would constitute seizure of Jordanian territory and setting up a new buffer state, which would absolutely violate international law. Israel can't annex the West Bank and make the residents Israeli citizens, because that would violate international law. Israel does formally annex Jerusalem and offer Israeli citizenship to all residents; few take them up on it, whether because of loyalty or because of fear of reprisals; lately with the prospect of finding themselves citizens of an actual Palestinian state, however, there has been a boom in applications for Israeli citizenship. In any event, this of course is condemned as a violation of international law. so Israel is stuck with administering the occupied territories as occupied territories. and, as predictable and as the Khartoum Resolutions were designed to do, it festers and screws Israel up royally. longterm military occupations are guaranteed to do that. screws up the Palestinians even more, of course, but the Khartoum Resolutions weren't developed for their benefit, were they? rightwing israeli political parties see that they can get electoral advantage by using west bank land to buy votes; they claim that it's just an inducement to the Palestinians to sign a treaty soon before more settlements get installed. that doesn't work. leftwing parties get elected, make plans to get out of gaza and the west bank; that doesn't work out either. rightwing parties get elected again.
anyway, what would you have done in 1967, with the territory won from the country which attacked you, despite your public statement of no hostilities? given it back? seize it from the previous owner to set up a new state against international law? they wouldn't sit down to take it back. annex it? i'm pretty much out of alternatives here except continue to administer it as occupied territory.
probably a good place here to point out that it takes a while for military occupations to really turn sour: the initial and lasting effects of the occupation included a significant rise in most standards of living in the occupied territories, after 20 years of stagnation under Jordan: life expectancy, infant mortality, population size, literacy, institutions of higher education, access to healthcare, power consumption per capita, water consumption per capita, income per capita, even number of cooking stoves per capita. refugee camps and all, their standard of living is still very high compared to the average in the Middle East. it's all very rosy and optimistic until it starts to grate on people.
a bit off-topic but not completely, so I'll ask: so, what happened to the 100,000 Jews resident in the West Bank in 1947? Families which had lived in Hebron, Nablus, Jerusalem since before Christ? Not a single Jew left in the area by 1949? all just felt like a voluntary change of scene at the same time, after having lived there through the Babylonian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire?
In any event, we are to believe that, while the departure of 80% of the Arabs from their ancestral homes in Israel is evidence of the cold-blooded Jews forcing them to flee, the departure of 100% of the Jews in the West Bank from their ancestral homes is in no way evidence that in fact the population transfers are caused by factors that can't be all blamed on the Jews, right? Just because the similar partition of pakistan and India cause the similar, but much larger, flight of millions of people from both sides, we can still say that if the Jews weren't so mean, the Palestinians would have all just stayed home?
the real problem, however, is that this attempt to assign blame to one side or the other is what keeps the area on fire, as is completely obvious. what's your point? the Israelis need to be punished for all the misdeeds you feel they've carried out through the years? you don't think that they might disagree? hell, i disagree and i'm not israeli. so you buy into the same old myth, going back to that good old Khartoum Resolution: if the Israelis don't get punished sufficiently in the process, then you don't want to see a Palestinian state.
for my money, in case i haven't made it clear, as with any groups of millions of people there have been more than enough cases of evil and virtue, undeserved suffering and selfless sacrifice, greed and generosity on both sides that at this point it's neither constructive or realistic to think that you can come to a decision as to who is to blame and, implicitly, who therefore needs to be punished, objectively and obviously. all that attitude does is perpetuate the "israelis vs Palestinians" "Jews vs Arabs" mindset that started this mess and keeps it going. Turn your head 90 degrees and start seeing individuals as "hostile vs pacifist" regardless of which nation they belong to, and start assigning your support on that axis instead.
and as a gratuitous postscript, yes i do feel that this unilateral assignment of blame on the Israelis by individuals who aren't personally involved is at least partially antisemitic. as i tried to point out in the vast verbiage above, there is more than enough evidence of responsibility on the part of the Arab nations as well that a singular act of will is necessary to ignore it and blame Israel alone. Countries act in a complex mix of moral and immoral ways, always have, always will and the nations of the Middle East, Israel included, are no exception.
The idea that Israel
