If the Arabs had never attacked in 1967, would the Israelis have tried to take over the West Bank eventually?

Israel did make the first move in the 1967 war, but as you say that was because Israel was about to be attacked.

In answer to your question, I would say no. There are indeed Israelis who view the West Bank as belonging to Israel as that is where the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria were located, and I have even met some totally crazy ones who would advocate destruction of the mosques on the Temple Mount so that a third temple can be built. Thankfully such lunatics are few and far between and do not make Israeli policy decisions, and are instead watched like a hawk in case they try anything stupid.

Israeli governments have for the most part been much more sensible in their approach, including having concluded peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and if Palestinian groups such as Hamas could be persuaded to be reasonable, I believe a peaceful resolution would be arranged which would see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

As for the Golan Heights, Israel has no religious or historic ties to that land, and it was annexed purely to stop the Syrians from raining bombs onto the kibbutzim below by the Sea of Galilee. Israel would never have taken that land if it hadn't been attacked by the Syrians up there.

Londoner In Israel

Edit: On further reflection, I would update my answer to a definite no. Prior to 1967 the West Bank was part of Jordan, and the Gaza Strip was part of Egypt, and had there been no war in 1967, they still would be. We now have peace with both of those countries, and would not have risked that peace on account of the biblical heritage of those lands. Riviva's answer is excellent.

EU Citizen - why does that concern you? You claim to be an atheist, and yet you support suicide bombing and Hezbollah. A peace-seeking Muslim like Muslim By Choice is an infinitely better person than an atheist warmonger such as yourself. UPDATE I am not implying that at all, although I would question your motivation for such support. In response to Smartgirl's question six days ago, you said that if you won the lottery you would 'outfit as many suicide bombers as i possible could and send them to rove around in Israels major cities.' If that isn't an expression of support for suicide bombers, what is? But if this is not your view and you were perhaps only joking, then I will stop carping at you if you will refrain from posting such offensiveness in the future. As for Hezbollah, they were the ones who kicked off all the bloodshed in 2006 by their entirely unprovoked attack on Israeli soldiers. Prior to that the border with Lebanon had been peaceful for years, and if it weren't for the existence of Hezbollah I'm convinced that Israel could make peace with Lebanon.

ABC - the Sea of Galilee is a large freshwater lake within Israel proper, as is part of the Jordan valley as far South as Beit She'an. We do not need the West Bank. UPDATE As Muslim By Choice has made clear, Israel occupied the West Bank as a defensive measure, and I say with hand on heart that I want it to be handed back to you. The problem is that Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad do not accept the right of Israel to exist at all, and would use any land as a base for intensifying their attacks against Israel, just as they are doing with the Gaza Strip. The settlers do not represent mainstream Israeli opinion, and Israel truly does not want to continue the occupation, which is why we evacuated the Gaza Strip. But for as long as the Palestinian militants refuse to accept Israel's right to exist, Israel will have an ongoing security need for continuing the occupation. I understand that you are a Palestinian, so if you have any influence over or contacts with any extremists, I ask you to try to convince them that continuing the resistance is counterproductive, and that we should all come to the table to sort it out once and for all.

Muslim By Choice - Yes the Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace, but the only place where Israel is seeking expansion of them these days is in close proximity to Jerusalem - effectively Israel is trying to create a buffer zone around Jerusalem much as Riviva suggested. Of course such a tactic is highly inflammatory to the Palestinians who want East Jerusalem for their capital, but viewed as necessary by Israel for the security of her Jerusalem residents. Which means that the fiercely contentious issue of Jerusalem will almost certainly be where current peace efforts will founder, unfortunately...

Michael J - truly excellent answer. Good to see you back!

No they would not have, but it also would have depended on the leadership at the time. When Ben Gurion was Prime Minister, during the war of independence, he order that the forces stop on what is now know as the borders of 1967. He knew that if Israel were to take over the West Bank there would be a problem as to what to do with the Arabs living there.
I personally think it was a mistake to settle the West Bank. But you must also realise the nature of Israeli politics. No single party can win a majority and hence has to form a coalition. This allows for small parties to have disproportionate strength and because of this many of their policies are adopted and the policies of the largest party are diluted. My reason for including that fact is that most of the parties that support settling the West Bank are these smaller religious based and more radical parties.
There is a very big debate in Israel over this, but no government has power to bring peace. This is because as they do move forward the smaller parties break away from the coalition and the government falls etc etc. By the way the average term of a government in Israel is 18 months. Israel is too democratic on one hand and there are too many cleavages in the Israeli society.
But one thing is most important-Jerusalem must never be split. When it was ruled by Jordan ie Muslims, synagogues and churches were desecrated and I personally would not trust the Palestinians in protecting other religions interests in their half.

No, I think not. While it is true that the West Bank is considered an integral part of biblical Israel, that does not mean that it was on the conquest agenda. For starters, the settler movement comprises less than 4% of all of Israel - not exactly statistical significance. Even all those self-defined as religious only amount to 20% of the country, of whom 10% are Haredi and thus pacifistic. However, even forgetting all that, the concept of an offensive war for the sake of conquest is contrary to Israeli mentality, which has always striven for peace and mutual acceptance in its international dealings. In 1967 for example, Israel asked Jordan explicitly not to join the fray but instead to remain neutral - clearly not the actions of a country bent on conquest. Further, Israel returned the Sinai in its entirety, despite the fact that is also to be a part of biblical Greater Israel. More recently, Israel withdrew from Gaza also a part of biblical Israel. If no wars had been launched against Israel, the mentality would have been 'some day' with regards the West Bank and other areas - patience and waiting for God's will to be done.

This response is also a response to some of the above answers.

Yes, Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967. But this was preemptive as Egypt had made it obvious they were planning an attack. The main proof was telling the UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai to leave because they were in the way.

The question, however, is about the West Bank, which had been part of Jordan before 1967. At the beginning of the war, Israel told King Hussein that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Jordan attacked Israel first.

Would Israel have tried to take over the West Bank and Golan Heights eventually, had the war in 1967 not happened? There is NO reason to think so. Biblical Israel included the east bank of the Jordan River, but Israel has never tried to take over Jordan.

As far as Gaza goes, Menachem Begin tried to give Gaza to Egypt in 1979, but Egypt did not want Gaza.

If arab nations didn't attack Israel the west bank would have been a part of Jordan to this day. The palestinians would of been forgoten.

Excerpts from an Interview with President Nasser,
by Iraqi Newsmen, 20 February 1966


Egypt expressed deep concern over the nuclear reactor that Israel was allegedly building near Dimona. After an air battle over the Golan Heights on April 7, 1967, during which six Syrian aircraft were downed, Egypt announced that it was allying itself with Syria.

Thus, on May 15, Egyptian forces entered the Sinai, in violation of the agreement signed in 1957, in the wake of the Sinai War. In addition, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships and ordered UN forces to withdraw from their positions along the border.

ISRAEL DID WHAT MUST BE DONE.

Absolutely not. Who wants the West Bank? Look at all the problems it has caused.

The only good part of the West Bank is the mile or so that provides a sort of "buffer zone" for both sides.

Read up on the West Bank- Jordan didn't want it either. Israel doesn't because it is not practical, and because of the demographic issue (for you cynics).
So, no... religious Jewish settlers represent a fringe group. Saying they speak for Israeli national policy is like saying that some fringe group like the the American KKK speaks for American national policy.

MUSLIM BY CHOICE- Thanks for your modicum of respect towards Jews/Israelis. You have not accused me of killing your family, stealing your land, not being a real human, being someone else, or being the devil, so for that I thank you. I wish more Muslims on this site were like you, because we'd have better discussions.

ABC, I know you are determined to hate me, so I will only respond to one part of your statement: the "buffer zone" can prevent full-scale war..which is beneficial to both of us.

Why don't you chill out sometimes.. you don't have to hate us so much.. and maybe if you tried not to, we could learn from each other

PREZ: This statement is an absolute lie: "The Arabs were about to attack them? anyone can say that someone is about to attack them, do they have proof? No. They're saying the same about Iran now but the whole world is just laughing at them
False.
Israel is saying that Iran could attack,because Iran is trying to build nuclear capabilities and has voiced its desire to eliminate Israel from the page of time on numerous occasions.
Yes, we did have proof in 1967. The proof was the Egyptians militarizing the border. When a belligerent nation starts gathering thousands of troops and tanks on your border, it's pretty obvious that they're about to attack. Even the international bodies recognize this as legal and moral under the category of pre-emption.


MUSLIM BY CHOICE- I appreciate your comments as well! And Rivia is fine, "Riviva" is not my real name anyway, more a combination .. you make a great point about talking to each other as people, not like we are all delegates at some United Nations meeting who represent 100% of their side's policy and have been charged with defeating all opponents. I look forward to further discussions with you, inshallah

The Arabs didn't attack Israel in 1967. The Israelis started the war and they say it is the Arabs to justify their occupation. And yes they would have occupied it anyways because their justification to the occupation is mainly that G-d gave it to them (G-d forgive me for saying that, I know you are not a real estate)

Eu Citizen, I also spell G-d G-d and I am not a collaborator. It is a mater of respect to the Almighty and it is not Jews who do it.

Shalom

First, 80% of the land of Palestine IS Muslim. The British stupidly gave that much land to them in hopes of appeasing the violent nature of Arabs. Obviously, that didn't work.

Then 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries.

Thus, it is the Arabs, not the Jews, who are taking over land. And apparently, the Arabs will not be happy until they dominate the entire Middle East.

The jews struck three nations pre-emptively; there was no Arab aggression. The circumstances you cite (pacts,etc.) were merely seized upon by the jews to justify what they were going to do anyway. Of course they would have seized Samaria and Judea eventually. What do think? They attempted to in 1948 and lost. That doesn't mean they forgot they wanted the West Bank and all of Jerusalem. You need to read an objective account of the war of 1967.

NO- unequivocally/ absolutely/ positively. (I hope that's very clear.)
Israel has never sought war, and the entire population here -- regardless of political "left-right" leanings -- prays for peace daily. In fact, the many, many citizens with traditional beliefs (denigrated in one answer as "crazy") or with certain addresses and outlook (falsely labeled in another answer as "fringe") pray for peace sincerely and consistently several times each day. True, the Torah clearly states that this land belongs to the Jews. This is not merely an attitude of religious settlers, but an understanding of all Torah adherents. While it brings great joy to live in the Land (or parts thereof) that God returned to us, the Torah values life. If our enemies would leave us in peace, we would not pursue them to wrest control of land. We do not wish to see anyone suffer. For thousands of years, the prevailing understanding has been that when He deems us worthy, He will give us back our Land. (The 1967 6 Day War can be seen in this light. Israel was attacked, and the astounding results have been described by warfare analysts as "miraculous".)
Research this, and you'll find that we don't just "talk the talk". No sovereign state has given up more (lives, homes, and land) in the pursuit of an elusive "peace" in which one side alone has always been interested.
As someone mentioned pre-emptive strikes, note also the needless loss of life resultant in certain instances when Israel (wrongly, according to experts) avoided such actions.