The 1967 borders were never offficially agreed on by the Palestinians. As such it was never officially there land... and instead they started a war with their allies. As such... they have no real legal claim except a revisionist history.
Palestine never having been an actual state never had any land to lose. Had they agreed to the boriders and an actual recognized palestinian state existed you'd have a point Superchunk.'
Any land Israel took from that was recognized as part of a foreign power... like the Suez Canal... you'd have a point. Palestine however... while occupied during a time of war was not gained through war. As said people were not part of any nation on which war could be declared. Despite there being people there... legally it would be no different if say the US colonized an uninhabited island when the war with iraq was going on.
You can argue other things... however the legal arguement is a poor one for the borders since palestine had no legal standing as a internationally recognized state. It could have, but it rejected such an offer in hopes of being greedy and grabbing more land then the UN decided. It's going to be hard to find anyone who isn't biased to support the 1967 borders in consideration of this.
Hence why the term "all territories" was rejected from UN resolution 242 on many occasions.
