You (and the source you cite) claim:

“The preamble of Resolution 242 was a compromise that took into account the other drafts that were before the Security Council, even though it did not really apply to Israel’s case. ”

The primary drafter of Resolution 242, Lord Caradon, had a rather different view of the matter. He was adamant, both that the preamble was specifically designed for the case, and that it precluded Israel from claiming any land on the basis of her conquests in 1967. I quote:

“Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line I was not prepared to use wording in the Resolution which would have made that line permanent. Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. ”

Hence your carefully cherrypicked arguments fall at the first hurdle: the drafting of Resolution 242 itself. In general, while one can find some authorities (mostly old ones, like Prof. Lauterpacht) claiming that there is a meaningful legal distinction between the annexation of territory occupied in a defensive war and that occupied in a war of aggression, the MAINSTREAM view in international law is that there is no such distinction. For mainstream views I will cite a couple of examples from standard textbooks (I”ve quoted these before on this site):

Lung-chu Chen, “An Introduction to Contemporary International Law” (2nd ed., New Haven, 2000), p.122:

“Although a minority dissents, it is increasingly conceded that contemporary international law has no scope for the acquisition of territory through conquest or subjugation. It has been asserted that the acquisition of territory resulting from self-defense against an aggressor state is still permissible, since self-defense remains permissible. That argument, however, misconceives the scope of self-defense”.

Martin Dixon, “Textbook on International Law” (6th ed., Oxford, 2007), p. 161:

“Prior to 1945 … the use of force was perfectly lawful and title to territory acquired through conquest was quite common … From the moment aggressive force became unlawful it has been impossible for a state to acquire title to territory by conquest … In similar vein, it is clear that a state that exercises force in (alleged) self-defence is under a duty to return (or retreat from) any territory of the aggressor state which it has occupied … In such circumstances, although the initial use of force by the defending state would not have been in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the [U.N.] Charter, the subsequent retention of territory when the threat has passed would be unlawful.”

Second, while the issue of how/when Israel caused the refugee status of the Arabs – who for the most part still lived in the territory of the Palestine mandate at war’s end, by the way – the gliding over the difference between whether the Zionist leadership actually planned a transfer and/or an attempt to create a refugee situation and what was the intention of the Arabs to be done to the Jews is the crucial moral mistake made by those of the Left (progressive, liberal,, radical or anarchist). Always forgive the Arabs.

As I found, already in 1938, fatwas of jihad were being regularly issued (http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2012/01/quiz-which-year.html) and it is amazing that Benny Morris only recently decided that the 1948 war was framed as jihad (=death for the Jews).

As anyone can find, Elihu Lauterpacht has drawn the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor. In drafting its preamble, the architects of Resolution 242 were referring to known international legal principles that precluded territorial modifications as a result of aggression. The preamble talks about “acquisition of territory by war.”

The case of a war of self-defense in response to aggression is a very different matter. This distinction was further made by Stephen Schwebel, who would later become the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State and then serve as President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The preamble of Resolution 242 was a compromise that took into account the other drafts that were before the Security Council, even though it did not really apply to Israel’s case. And by keeping it in the preamble and not in the operative parts of the resolution, the architects of Resolution 242 avoided creating any legal obligations for Israel that could be construed as precluding the resolution’s call for new “secure and recognized boundaries” beyond the earlier 1967 lines.

And, after Resolution 242 was adopted, the Soviet deputy foreign minister, Vasily Kuznetsov, admitted: “There is certainly much leeway for different interpretations that retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only so far as the lines it judges convenient.”

One of many references:
http://www.defensibleborders.org/rosenne.htm

In New Mexico, the legal status progressed from “military occupation” in 1848 to civil territory to statehood in 1912. Residents of the conquered territory were given the option of U.S. or Mexican citizenship. Mexican land titles were clarified either by upholding Spanish land grants or invalidating them. At that time, native tribes still had “protected nation” status. In 1924 the Indian Citizenship act was passed to grant citizenship.

A combination of conquest and inclusiveness, a public policy seeking clarity in legal status to promote integration into the larger national union – these make the New Mexico example quite a bit different from the West Bank experience.

2. The Arabs are not our friendly neighbors. Excepting those who are citizens of Israel, and those with whom we have treaties, they are our enemies, and they recognize no human rights whatever for Israeli Jews.

3. The 19678 war liberated Judea and Samaria from the illegal Jordanian occupation and returned it to Jewish sovereignty. The West Bank is not “Occupied”. Israeli opinions differ on whether Israel should divest itself of Judea and Samaria.

4. The Supreme Court does not have, and should not have, unlimited power to overrule the decisions of the elected representatives of the people. Otherwise it would be a dictatorship by the Central Committee of the Court.