You probably have good intentions, but you sound naive...

The basic problem in this conflict is: The vast majority of Israelis do not want a two-state solution, they are absolutely against a palestinian state. Even if an israeli politician was in favor of a two-state solution, actually going that path would be political suicide. Yitzhak Rabin learned this the hard way... Jews that emigrate to Israel are often the more religious hardcore type of jews, who consider "Eretz Israel"/"greater Israel" some kind of divine mission/doctrine. They seriously believe that god has given them the land and wants them (and preferably: only them) to be there. This rejection of a palestinian state is so widespread that you will not find a single political party in Israel advocating a two-state solution. In Israel, there is virtually no talk about a two-state solution. The ruling Likud party for example even explicitely states in their party platform the aim of preventing the establishment of a palestinian state by all means. (Considering that, it's almost cynical when people parrot the claim that "the only path for the palestinians to get their own state is via direct negotiations with the israeli government". Because that's the only path that will definitely never lead to a palestinian state.)

And this is not just a recent reaction to earlier "palestinian terror". It's been like this for many decades. They are even completely avoiding the word "palestine", the palestinian territories are always referred to as "judea and samaria", illustrating the perception that they are kind of occupied territries belonging to Israel.

Israel's actual strategy is simple: Delay the establishment of a palestinian state as long as necessary/possible, while meanwhile creating facts using their settlement policy that will ultimatively make any palestinian state unrealistic. Torpedo any real solution, but always place the blame on the palestinians. Whenever people like Netanyahu are talking about a two-state solution on the international stage, they are really just bluffing so the public is happy to hear what they want to hear - and just a few hours later, they'll announce expanding the settlements with thousands of new homes. There's a good reason for nicknames like "armour-plated bullshitter".

But, by the way, it's not like the Israelis are the evil guys here and the palestinians are the good guys. Neither side is morally better than the other - the palestinian tragedy is just that they happen to have much less power and weaponry.

Sinai war wasn't an excercise in British, French, and Israeli aggression against Egypt because they asserted their sovereignty and took over the Suez Canal?

Then why did the UN (including the USA at that point) step in and stop them?

Come on Khan.  Your a better study of history then that.

The USA stepped in because the USA and USSR were in the middle of a competition to win over Egypt in the "Cold War shuffle".

The US thought if they won Egypt they could win most of the Middle East.

US Support of Egypt of the UK in who should control the Suez canal was directly supposed to be the "big play" that allowed the US to win Egypt as an ally and hopefully the rest of the middle east with it.  It was a big play of Dulles.

Figlioni doesn't really seem to know his history here either... but the catalyst of the war was neither blockaiding of the Israeli's nor Israeli Agression.

The catalyst to the war was the Nationalization of the Suez Canal in direct violation of the 1949 armistance.

Isrsael was more or less a French and British puppet state used to attack Egypt.  They were willing to go along because Egypt greatly improved their military with Soviet weapons sales even though the West agreed to limit weapons sales to an "Even" amount between all sides to keep the peace.

Had Israel not gone along with it.  The War would of happened still.  The only difference is Iraq would now be holding Soverinty over the Suez Canal.

Well probably not, since I doubt the West would of allowed them to keep control of the Suez Canal until today... but you get my point.

The US Condemned it specifially since it more or less ruined US foreign policy in the area and it was the only way to save any face and not COMPLETELY lose the middle east to the Soviet Union.  Essentially England and France fucked up US Foreign policy plans good, and hid from the USA the fact that they were going to invade.

The US condemned them sepcifically to "put them in their place" and make sure they wouldn't go rogue against US policy again.  Hell the whole thing inadvertantly led to the UK deciding Nuclear Brinksmanship was a good idea.   Had it not been for them, chances are the 1950's and 60's would of been a lot less scarier.

Actually your knowledge here exceeds mine. I knew that Israeli involvement was more opportunistic and that it was primarily British/French motivated, but i still believed it was a simple plot on their part to take back a canal that didn't really belong to them (setting aside the validity of the 1949 armistice).

Actually they were just more paranoid (or not i don't know) that Egypt was in a secret alliance to build up their military forces with Jordan etc, and that they'd lose in a second outnumbered due to Russian weapons.  Losing to Egypt, Jordan and... I forget the third country.

The Suez Canal was really more the priority of the British who didn't want to lose easy access to India.  Israel actually wasn't supposed to ever take control of it originally, instead they were more or less just a French/British smokescreen.  What Israel was after was support from the Brittish.

Who, not for nothing at the time actually hated Israel.  You know, thanks to the zionist terrorist groups assassanating their leaders.

Essentially the big plan was Israel would invade, the UK and France woud order a decree asking both sides to vacate so they could "facilitate the peace".  Then when Egypt Refused the British would have the needed Casus Belli to invade... and they would take over the canal. not Israel.  Then the US basically forced the UK and france out however, and later Israel. 

The fact that Israel didn't get any concessions on arms control due to US involvement is argueably what led up to the escalation and the six day war... which was going to happen one way or another even if Israel didn't strike first.

Honestly, I don't remember what Frane was supposed to get out of the whole thing.  I guess just putting Egypt in it's place so it didn't rile up remaining French North African interests.