Here's a thought:
In this timeline, part of the reason Israel took the Golan was to prevent the Syrians damming the tributaries to the River Jordan. With an already established 'Greater Israel' that includes the Golan Heights, the Syrians won't be able to dam the river, and perhaps a war with Syria could be avoided.
As the majority of the populations in this area are Druze, they become more integrated into Israeli society at earlier point (a lot of Golan Druze work in Israel and make good money)
With better relations with Syria, the borders are effectively open, allowing the Druze to visit families either side.
Israel still has its equivalent of the 6 day war, but in this time line does not advance into Jordan, but rather holds at the River as it is much easier to defend (I think taking out Amman would stretch Israel's resources)
Israel occupies the Sinai, and in addition Southern Lebanon south of the Litani River.
An equivalent 'Camp David' peace treaty with UAR (assuming UAR is Egypt, Libya and north Sudan) sees the Sinai returned to them as per OTL.
OTL: The Egyptians are also offered the return of the Gaza strip, but refuse because it's just too problematic.
In this timeline, the UAR accepts the offer, and effectively has its own 'Palestinian problem' with the Gaza strip. (this borders ASB though, so I'm inclined to think Israel still gets the Gaza strip and all the inherent problems.
In the early 90's. Israel makes peace with Lebanon (the OTL equivalent of the Jordan-Israel peace process)
Lebanon is offered the portion south of the Litani River, but declines risking incorporating a hostile population.
The Southern portion of Lebanon becomes this timelines equivalent of the 'West Bank', with all the inherent problems.
Later, a deal is made turning South Lebanon into a Palestinian state.
The ATL Arab spring : Mass demonstrations in Tahrir square result in a brutal crackdown. The protest moves to Benghazi, which fairs better. Civil war breaks out in UAR between a rebel held Benghazi, and the government in Cairo.
Seizing the opportunity, Bedouin tribes in the Sinai arm themselves and start their own tribal conflict - turning the Sinai Peninsula into a lawless area.
Islamic extremists launch a missile strike on the port of Eilat from the lawless Sinai region.
Israel has no choice but to respond, seeing as the UAR civil war is spiralling out of control, Netenyahu orders the IDF to bomb the extremists and 'take control' of the situation....
UN sends a peacekeeping force.
An interesting TL outline, but I can't say I grasp every part of it. ITTL, does Greater Israel take the Golan Heights in 1948-49 or in the Six-Day War equivalent ??

It could happen both ways, although I would find it more plausible if it happens in the 6-day war.
I seem to understand that ITTL Gaza Strip still remains to Egypt (later Egypt-Libya-North Sudan) and sis crowded with Palestinians. Plausible. Theoretically, however, the E-L-NS state could take over the Gaza Strip and dump its population somewhere in Libya. Or even more natural, the Gaza Strip could be handed over to Jordanian Palestine. Why is it not happening ? Because the area has an Hamas equivalent problem ?
I take that in the scenario you proposed, southern Lebanon becomes the West Bank equivalent. It is feasible, but I still find it more plausible if the Palestinian refugees population clusters in Transjordan after 1948, not Lebanon, and takes it over as a "PLO nation", instead of southern Lebanon. Southern Lebanon may still end up an area occupied by Israel after the 6-day war, but the restive locals would be native Shiites, not Palestinians, as per OTL.
Lebanon should be eager to be returned the area that is officially a part of its territory, if it is offered, unless... let's say that with Southern Lebanon under Israeli occupation, the Christian militias are butterflied into winning the Lebanon civil war (because they get Israeli support), and so they don't really want a southern Lebanon returned that is full with Shiites, to unbalance the new demographic balance which favors Christians. So Israel would have an Hezbollah equivalent problem.
Interesting Arab Spring butterflies you propose for the E-L-NS state. Unless part of the divergence is that the British set up separate North Sudan (to Egypt, later Egypt-Libya) and South Sudan states, it would also have a civil war problem in South Sudan for most of its history, until SS eventually breaks away by means similar to OTL.
And then there is the Syria-Iraq-Kuwait state. Of course, there is never a Gulf war nor an Iraq war ITTL. This may or may not butterfly Al-Quaeda away, or if the Iranian Revolution is not butterflied away, it could make Islamist terrorism a mainly Shiite problem (instead of an Iraq war, NATO invades Iran at some point, and there is an Iran war ?). If the Iranian Revolution still happens, a S-I-K state is even more likely to start the Iran-Iraq war, and to win it to some degree. If it wins a sufficiently decisive victory (annexation of Khuzestan ?), it could lead to the downfall of the Islamist Iranian regime, which would prevent the Iran War. Or a defeated iran could radicalize, overtly support terrorism, and drive NATO to invade it. Much like OTL Syria, the S-I-K entity would be in the throes of the Arab Spring now.
For the purposes of making this discussion simpler, I would hereby propose the following nomenclature for the various Pan-Arab states:
-the union of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait would be the United Arab Republic (UAR)
-the union of Egypt, Libya, and (North) Sudan would be the Federation of Arab Republics (FAR)
-the union of Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait would be the Arab Federation (AF)
by picking the closest OTL equivalent.