They occupied part of Egypt in response to Egyptian aggression. They returned the land in exchange for peace.
They occupied part of Lebanon in response to Lebanese aggression. It was a mistake to return the land without getting peace in return.
They occupied part of Syria in response to Syrian aggression. Syria now no longer exists so there is now no longer any such thing as Syrian territory.
Just as I thought, your posts are full of the same pro Israeli nonsense that has been put to the sword already. The fact that you still peddle it in your posts only shows a commitment to your preferred side and has little to do with the " facts you stick with "
Egypt.
Egypt responded to the 1948 situation in Palestine for two main reasons. Firstly, it was against the imposition of a Jewish state on the Arabs of Palestine. Secondly, it was apparent that there was an attempt by the Jewish forces of the time to snaffle as much of the mandate area as they could for the nascent Jewish state amid the fog of war which also led to mass exodus/expulsions of Palestinians into neighbouring areas. Egyptian forces fighting in what was, predominently the Arab portion on the partition plan area, note not in the area given to the Jewish state under the plan.
The second Egypt/Israel war took place when Israel , along with the UK and France, decided to attack Egypt in 1956 .
In the 67 war Israel again attacked Egypt first after firstly lying that it was a victim of an attack. Some of the key Israeli heads at the time later admitted that troop movement by Egyptian leaders did not pose a serious threat to Israel . Are we 6to believe them who called the shots at the time or you who is happier sticking to the subsequent fig leaf story for Israeli aggression against Egypt?
After Israeli refusals to discuss a resolution on the occupied Sinai the Egyptians attacked, in 1973, not Israel, but rather the Israeli forces occupying their territory. The war of 73 was , at least initially and on military grounds, a shock to the Israeli hierarchy and afterwards they basically accepted what had been offered by Egypt since 1971 in order to take Egypt out of the enemy state status.
You look at the above factually accurate breakdown and it becomes clear that to think that all was down to " Egyptian aggression " alone shows a wholly obvious and deep seated ability to deny the facts that don't confirm the bias your posts show
Syria.
According to Moshe Dayan, around " 80% of the border skirmishes were initiated by the Israeli side ". These were the skirmishes that led , in no small part, to the Israeli attacks on the neighbouring Arab states during the war that followed circa 1967. So, who are we to believe ? An Israeli commander in charge at the time or you ?
Lebanon
There are no Lebanese attacks on Israel, only attacks from the PLO from Lebanon when they shifted from Jordan to Lebanon after the Black September troubles. I asked you to familiarize yourself with the early pre state maps for any future Jewish state and for good reason. In 1919 Chaim Weizman, then head of the WZO wrote a letter to the western powers, controlling Palestine after the demise of Ottoman rule, and asked the future Jewish state be given , fromthe area now making up southern Lebanon ," 25 miles" north of the Litani river.
In the 1950s Dayan suggested a plan to seduce a Maronite officer in Lebanon and have him be the self proclaimed saviour of Lebanons christian community which, in an allince with Israel, allow for Israeli forces to attack and annexe a large swathe of southern Lebanon. These things are years before the first invasion of Lebanon by Israeli forces and outline the areas long coveted by a wanting to expand Jewish state. They never got peace with Lebanon because they didn't want it. They were finally kicked out by Hezbollah in 2006.
Once again, when you know a little more than Israeli hasbara floating around like a mist to obscure the truth, things look very different and to put the blame on just one side can only come from, imo, a pretty ignorant viewing of the facts
