":::Thanks for all your hard work, Ling.Nut. Apologies for not getting back sooner. I was blocked for 55 hours, ostensibly for ""edit warring"", for implementing the agreed version of the 3rd para pending further discussion and revision and undoing reverts implemented without discussion or peer approval, despite repeated reasonable requests to resolve the problem through the Talk page. I'm going to leave editing for others, as it's proven futile for me to try to improve the article with my own edits. I'll focus instead on helping Ling.Nut get his new lede implemented. This version is a huge improvement, and I think is coming together quite nicely. I have a few further objections/suggestions:

1) ""These territorial gains left Israel three and half times larger than its original size...""

I strongly object to this wording. This suggests Israel's territory expanded, and the assumption seems to be that there was annexation rather than occupation. Yet it's an uncontroversial point of fact under international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible, and the Israeli occupation and colonization illegal. This is reflected in UN res 242 and numerous subsequent resolutions. Suggest:

 ""This left Israel in control of three in a half times more territory than it had under the 1949 Armistice Lines.""

2) ""Two days later Nasser requested and rapidly obtained the withdrawal of UNEF troops from Egyptian territory, and the following day Egyptian forces replaced UN positions at the strategically vital point of Sharm el-Sheikh, which overlooks the geographically and politically vital Straits of Tiran.""

Suggest adding after this:

 ""Israel rejected proposals to have UNEF restationed on its side of the border.""

This is extremely relevant for the context, and particularly with regard to the discussion of whether the war was ""preemptive"" or not. Had Israel truly feared an Egyptian attack, it could very well have accepted the UNEF buffer, yet it refused. Why? If this fact is not mentioned in the lede, it should at the very least be mentioned in the body of the article in the section on that topic. Forgive me if I overlooked it, but I didn't notice it there scanning through.

3) ""Though few material facts of the war are in dispute, the motivations and intentions of the national leaders on both sides has been the subject of much speculation and debate.""

Minor grammar error: ""have"" not ""has"". Plural subject.

4) ""The Six Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war, an ""inadvertent war"", and an action designed to preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy, as well as other things of a more controversial nature.""

To what characterization(s) does the last clause refer?   

"