[nicky g]

I'll give my opinion on number 2:

"2) To what area of land is Israel entitled as a state? "

It is entitled to its internationally recognised boundaries and any territory it acquires under mutually satisfactory negotiations with otehr parties. This equates more or less, with potential slight revisions, to its pre-1967 boundaries.

"Some of the West Bank and the Golan, or none of it? Should Israel be entitled to keep more than the original boundaries of 1948 simply because they have been attacked in the past (the spoils of war)?"

If the Palestinians or the Syrians are willing to cede it some in negotiation, which in the case of the Palestinians would be the likely outcome of any final status talks (in return for land elsewhere), it would be entitled to those. It is not entitled to any land on the basis that it was attacked or as the spoils of war. International law condemns the acquisition of land through war of any kind, and Israel is no more entitled to it than Egypt would have been entitled to chunks of Israel if it had have managed to take some following the Suez invasion. Even if there were some law (which there isn't) saying countries were allowed to hold on to territory gained after having been attacked, Israel would not be entitled to any of the West Bank or Golan Heights, given that in the war in which it seized them, it attacked first, and in the case of the Golan seized the territory after its rightful owner (Syria, which never attempted to launch an invasion of Isreal during the way) had agreed to a ceasefire.