I do not know what happened exactly before 1948, but it must have something to do with it.
*cackles* How much time do you have? There are entire academic programs that focus on the history of the Holy Lands and the various quasi-religious conflicts that occur there.
Jews, Muslims, and Christians all claim the area. Of those three religions, the Jews have the oldest historical claim (as compared with the other two). Local conflicts, crusades, and a variety of quasi-religious wars were fought for literally thousands of years between those three religions over ownership of the area. Prior to 1948, the most recent "owners" were Arab Muslims who resided in the British mandate of Palestine.
Following World War 2, the powers-that-be decided that Jews needed a nation-state of their own; they decided to create one in Palestine, with a separate state of Palestine alongside. Negotiations broke down in the process, Israel declared itself a country and fought a very bloody conflict to make itself into one, the UN recognized it, and Palestine ceased to exist. The neighboring Arab countries have been pissed off (and reasonably so, since Palestine was also supposed to become a country) ever since, but from 1948 to 1979 they sought a resolution through destruction of Israel rather than negotiation for a two-state solution. Israel had no such counter-aim against its neighbors (in point of fact, they considered returning several of the areas captured during the Six Day War immediately after and only decided against it out of strategic interest - they provided useful buffer zones against impending future attacks).
While I don't disagree with your assessment that the surrounding countries have been very antagonistic towards Israel, I do tend to feel that they weren't planning an attack. If they were, they must have been planning to lose it cause they were in no way ready for a war. It's especially worth remembering that the Arab nations had all signed mutual defence treaties with each other. As soon as Egypt was attacked it was pretty much a given conclusion that the others would join in.
Depends on your context for the planning of the attack. Most of the quibbling on the "pre-emptive war" debate is not IF Egypt was preparing to attack Israel, it's the WHEN. I agree that Egypt was not ready to counter the Israeli thrust, but the main stack of retrospective evidence points not to an immediate (e.g. less than 48 hour strike), but one being planned several weeks/months in advance.
As for them remaining hostile to Israel after the 6 Day War, wouldn't you? If it was an unprovoked attack followed by an unjustified landgrab, I mean.
Sure - if it was an unjustified landgrab. On the other hand, knowing Israel had already displayed an impressive ability to kick the **** out of my military, were I in Nasser's shoes I wouldn't have tried launching yet another
offensive war six years later, on a national Israeli religious holiday, no less.
No matter how you look at it, you have to take into the previous and future actions of the combatants. While Israel was without a doubt belligerent, they also maintained a goal of survival. By contrast, its neighbours had no such defensive aims. Taken in a context of a week or two in 1967, perhaps the Six Day War really doesn't look pre-emptive. Taken in context of three decades of conflict, it's pretty difficult to draw any other conclusion. maybe that's where we differ in our assessments.
