D: "if it does not have miltarily defensive borders, it will just be an invitation to new agression." And so how much is then too much for Israel to insist upon? Your argument is never-ending; Israel can take half the West Bank, then find that its borders are still not "miltarily secure" because the Pals on the other side remain unrelentingly hostile to that land-grab. Well then, better grab the rest, I suppose..... Damn, the people we pushed over the Allamby Bridge are still angry with me (anyone know why???) so I guess I better expand my borders OVER the Jordan as well - can't be to careful, you know, and Res 242 *does* give me the right...... But history has proven the opposite to YOUR claim, Duncan; where Israel has reached agreements (Egypt, Jordan) the borders have ended up being the old Int'l borders - however imperfect they might be "militarily" - because the PEACE is vastly more important than the HIGH GROUND. It'll be the same with the Pals. And Syria.
Law expanding definition of terrorist activity passes first Knesset reading (Haaretz)
from the article: Failed marks in comprehension