Has the same right to defend itself against aggression that every other member state of the UN does. The Arab states made no secret that their war aim in 1948 and 1967 was to destroy Israel entirely. Had the Arab states been capable of making good on their threats in either war, this argument wouldn't be happening at all, because there would be no "Jewish Palestinians" left alive to agrue their case. Now let me ask you: if you went into a casino with the declared intent of "breaking the bank" and lost all your money instead, how could you justify demanding that the casino return the money you lost? Egypt, Jordan and Syria were the aggressors in those wars. Since when does it make sense to return land unconditionally to an aggressor who lost it? The Arab countries wagered twice that they could win--and lost both times. The first time, Jordan was allowed to keep land acquired in a war of aggression--land that should have been part of the Arab state mentioned in UNGAR 181. So was Egypt. No one protested. In 1964, the PLO waived all claims to the areas illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan--see Article 24 of the PLO Charter, 1964 version. It's available on the Palestinian Permanent Observer to the UN web site. What land was "occupied" at that point? What "settlements" existed at that time? Who was Israel "threatening"? An aggressor who loses should be punished--look at the conditions of the treaties with Germany and Japan in 1945. It's just as easy to sit thousands of miles away and pass judgment on something one knows nothing about as it is to say that the quarterback shouldn't have thrown the interception that cost the game. FYI: many countries do have defensible borders, usually marked by mountain ranges, rivers or coastlines. Topography plays a large part in secure and defensible borders in conventional warfare.
Judge orders Jerusalem Gay Pride attacker to undergo psychiatric evaluation (Haaretz)
from the article: Setting Palestine's borders