This is if you view the Arab states as the aggressor in 1967 even though Israel was the one who initiated the conflict. If you see Israel as the aggressor in 1967 and the yom kipper war as a counter offensive to take back land that Israel had stolen then it becomes less justifiable.
It’s more like Russia keeping the Donbas after it launched a “preemptive strike” because it was afraid Ukraine was gonna team up with nato to attack them. Then 5 years after trump forces Ukraine to make peace they launch an offensive into the donbas to take there land back, only to get repelled again.
Sorry, missed this amongst a few less knowledgeable replies.
Generally, I understand the Arab states as the aggressor in that.
The Israeli attack was a first strike but happened with multiple armies deployed along its borders.
It’s been awhile since I read about that war but my memory is that someone (Egypt?) cut off a Israel’s access to a major maritime route. Israel reiterated its decade long position that such an act was grounds for war. In other words saying “if you do this, we consider a war to have begun.”
The Arab states deploy troops and units along multiple Israeli borders. A quick look at total troops available to the new Arab defence pact suggest they outmanned Israel’s by almost 2:1, with more than 2:1 and 3:1 advantage in aircraft and tanks respectively. (I admittedly I have no memory of quality of those forces.)
The destruction of the Egyptian airforce is pretty famous in military history and based on those facts, I’ve always felt the Arab states as the aggressor in that one.
What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?
What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?
The fact that they struck first. Closing a maritime route is not a cause for war just because someone says it is, just like Ukraine applying for nato wouldn’t be. Any action done by a country within its own borders is up to them, that’s sovereignty. Saying those acts are a cause for war and invading them for doing so is a violation of that sovereignty.
Almost every invader in history claims their attack was a pre-emptive strike and/or the other countries legitimate peaceful sovereign actions are a cause for war. Japan told the u.s. if it continued its oil embargo that it would be a cause for war. The u.s. continuing that embargo doesn’t make pearl harbor a legitimate response. Poland began massing troops on the border prior to the nazi invasion, that doesn’t make them the agressor.
The Arab states had done nothing that broke the peace prior to the war. They cut off maritime access through a strait completely within their territory and then massed troops on the border of a state that had invaded one of its neighbor a decade ago and was threatening to do so again.
There’s a reason the UN doesn’t recognize preemptive attacks, they’re just excuses for aggressors to invade.
You’re assuming they were going to attack when there is no evidence for that. Amassing troops at the border doesn’t mean you’re going to attack, like with Poland in 1939 it could just mean you’re trying to defend yourself from an expansionist nation who is threatening you. Israel a decade before 1967 had invaded Egypt to take the Sinai peninsula with the help of the French. It makes sense if you have a neighbor like that who just made a threat to you for exercising your sovereignty to put troops on the border in case they try to invade again.
Yeah Israel had a gun to its head, but so did the Arab states, it wasn’t as if Israel wasn’t also fully mobilized and ready to attack. International relations, especially in the nuclear age, is a series of guns pointed at the heads of everyone else. With ICBMs and nuclear submarines, any enemy of the u.s. is constantly under the threat of nuclear annihilation. That doesn’t give Iran the right to attack the u.s. because it constantly threatens them and is afraid they will nuke them.
Even ignoring nukes the north Koreans constantly have missiles and artillery pointed at Seoul, ready to level it at any moment, and vice versa for south Korea and the u.s. If either side attacked both could credibley claim they felt threatened, especially the north with the world’s most powerful country on its doorstep, who carried out a near genocidal bombing campaign against the north in the last war. If either side launched a “preemptive strike” they would rightly be called the agressor and should be condemned for breaking the peace. They definitely shouldn’t be rewarded with more land.
And just like Poland in 1939, Israel was threatened by an amassing, significantly larger force.
As a lot of Jews died in Israel Poland, I’m pretty sure the costs of waiting until the other side attacks were absorbed, heavily, by Israelis.
I think nuclear standoffs are categorically different, the entire MAD doctrine depends on the impossibility of a first strike.
At the end of the day, Egypt and the other Arab states took a series of recklessly aggressive steps against a rightfully paranoid and numerically inferior opponent. (And it’s not like Egypt was seriously threatened by Israel when they started massing with multiple Arab states, the previous war had been fought with heavy UK/French support after the Egyptians again acted pretty recklessly.)
Edit: A country? Crossed it out above as I should own up to a silly typo like that.
These aren’t standoffs, you think I’m talking about Russia, where yes MAD prevents either from attacking, I’m talking about the people living outside the small group of countries that have nukes. Iran isn’t covered by MAD, the u.s. could nuke Tehran tomorrow and nothing would be done besides severe diplomatic push back. Any “enemy of the u.s.” that doesn’t have nukes is subject to the constant fear of the u.s. war machine, which may not nuke you but will definitely relentlessly bomb your territory with drones. That doesn’t give them the right to attack the u.s. because they feel threatened.
Maybe they did act recklessly, that doesn’t make it right to attack them. Reckless is such a subjective term in that it’s heavily dependent on the party you sympathize with. You sympathize with Israel so you think the Arab states acted recklessly for the above reasons. I sympathize more with the Arab states because they were just blockading a single port to a country which they saw as being a serial bad actor in the region. This wasn’t some existential threat to them, they were still better off than near landlocked Jordan since they have a ton of Mediterranean coast. And again Israel was also fully mobilized, apparently a lot more then the Arab states.
Either way you and I can argue back and forth all day on who behaved more recklessly, just like north Koreans and south Koreans can argue back and forth all day on whose behaving recklessly, they won’t get anywhere because it’s a subjective opinion. This is why “preemptive strikes” are against international law, they always rely on these subjective terms like “threatening” and “reckless” such that any major power with significant sway in the international sphere can use them to justify any attack.
I just don’t think your position holds up under its own assumptions.
First, you require an Egypt that is simultaneously terrified of Israel but also blockades the Strait of Tiran for no obvious strategic or economic purpose. Yes, Israel was a part of the winning side in the previous war but also had significant British and French help.
Yes, Israel was fully mobilized, because Egypt had just crossed a line that Israel said was an act of war. Having neighbours on all sides who occasionally try to invade and murder all your people will also make you more willing to mobilize quickly, especially when about 1/3 of all Jews had just been murdered.
It just boggles the imagination that someone could look at the following facts and say “yeah, Israel started this.”:
A) Egypt, against maritime and international law (as brokered by the UN) and the terms of its previous peace deal, blockaded Israel from a major port. Israel declares (as per the terms of the peace treaty and Israel’s stated position) that this is an act of war.
B) Egypt then along with several neighbours deploys, along multiple borders, an army that outmans, outguns and outplanes (okay, has air superiority but that doesn’t work as well with the pattern!) Israel by a 2:1 ratio and 3:1 in the serious stuff (armour/planes.)
C) Israel on the night of the attack is alone, without allies or material support.
I cannot imagine you are seriously saying that despite all the facts on the ground, the correct course of action for Israel was to wait until being engaged and then just pray that this time things worked out for the Jews? That’s just wild to me. “Sorry kids, sure, we saw all those soldiers massing but we really thought the Jews were only due one massacre per half century. Whoopsies!”
You keep assuming the Arab states were going to attack when there is no evidence of that. It’s just the fact that Israel felt threatened, when every country feels threatened. The way nations form is the basic narrative that there is an enemy out there threatening you and you have to band together to take on that enemy. Even countries as secure as the u.s. will contrive threats from China or the cartels to point to an enemy.
Again I’m not going to argue which party fealt more threatened because that’s a subjective experience. There are countries that are just as threatened as Israel was and they don’t attack.
All the points you just made could be made for enemies of the u.s. like Iran, north Korea and Cuba. North Korea also suffered a horrific bombing campaign by a country on there border and suffers far more from economic sanctions then Israel ever did when the straits were closed. The embargo on Cuba has repeatedly been called out as against international law. If Cuba or north Korea demanded an end to sanctions or it would be war, and then the u.s. poured troops in to surround them on there borders would it be right for them to launch a first strike against Seoul or Florida?
No you’d probably say they made a threat to the u.s. with that ultimatum and the u.s. deploying troops was a valid response to that threat. Any sort of ultimatum that involves war should be considered a threat and an escalation. You don’t get a pass because you were treated horribly before.
This is if you view the Arab states as the aggressor in 1967 even though Israel was the one who initiated the conflict. If you see Israel as the aggressor in 1967 and the yom kipper war as a counter offensive to take back land that Israel had stolen then it becomes less justifiable.
It’s more like Russia keeping the Donbas after it launched a “preemptive strike” because it was afraid Ukraine was gonna team up with nato to attack them. Then 5 years after trump forces Ukraine to make peace they launch an offensive into the donbas to take there land back, only to get repelled again.
Sorry, missed this amongst a few less knowledgeable replies.
Generally, I understand the Arab states as the aggressor in that.
The Israeli attack was a first strike but happened with multiple armies deployed along its borders.
It’s been awhile since I read about that war but my memory is that someone (Egypt?) cut off a Israel’s access to a major maritime route. Israel reiterated its decade long position that such an act was grounds for war. In other words saying “if you do this, we consider a war to have begun.”
The Arab states deploy troops and units along multiple Israeli borders. A quick look at total troops available to the new Arab defence pact suggest they outmanned Israel’s by almost 2:1, with more than 2:1 and 3:1 advantage in aircraft and tanks respectively. (I admittedly I have no memory of quality of those forces.)
The destruction of the Egyptian airforce is pretty famous in military history and based on those facts, I’ve always felt the Arab states as the aggressor in that one.
What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?
The fact that they struck first. Closing a maritime route is not a cause for war just because someone says it is, just like Ukraine applying for nato wouldn’t be. Any action done by a country within its own borders is up to them, that’s sovereignty. Saying those acts are a cause for war and invading them for doing so is a violation of that sovereignty.
Almost every invader in history claims their attack was a pre-emptive strike and/or the other countries legitimate peaceful sovereign actions are a cause for war. Japan told the u.s. if it continued its oil embargo that it would be a cause for war. The u.s. continuing that embargo doesn’t make pearl harbor a legitimate response. Poland began massing troops on the border prior to the nazi invasion, that doesn’t make them the agressor.
The Arab states had done nothing that broke the peace prior to the war. They cut off maritime access through a strait completely within their territory and then massed troops on the border of a state that had invaded one of its neighbor a decade ago and was threatening to do so again.
There’s a reason the UN doesn’t recognize preemptive attacks, they’re just excuses for aggressors to invade.
So your position is they should have waited until the massed armies that outnumbered them 2:1 attacked?
That seems like an insane demand to thrust upon a people who had years earlier been murdered on an industrial scale.
You’re assuming they were going to attack when there is no evidence for that. Amassing troops at the border doesn’t mean you’re going to attack, like with Poland in 1939 it could just mean you’re trying to defend yourself from an expansionist nation who is threatening you. Israel a decade before 1967 had invaded Egypt to take the Sinai peninsula with the help of the French. It makes sense if you have a neighbor like that who just made a threat to you for exercising your sovereignty to put troops on the border in case they try to invade again.
Yeah Israel had a gun to its head, but so did the Arab states, it wasn’t as if Israel wasn’t also fully mobilized and ready to attack. International relations, especially in the nuclear age, is a series of guns pointed at the heads of everyone else. With ICBMs and nuclear submarines, any enemy of the u.s. is constantly under the threat of nuclear annihilation. That doesn’t give Iran the right to attack the u.s. because it constantly threatens them and is afraid they will nuke them.
Even ignoring nukes the north Koreans constantly have missiles and artillery pointed at Seoul, ready to level it at any moment, and vice versa for south Korea and the u.s. If either side attacked both could credibley claim they felt threatened, especially the north with the world’s most powerful country on its doorstep, who carried out a near genocidal bombing campaign against the north in the last war. If either side launched a “preemptive strike” they would rightly be called the agressor and should be condemned for breaking the peace. They definitely shouldn’t be rewarded with more land.
And just like Poland in 1939, Israel was threatened by an amassing, significantly larger force.
As a lot of Jews died in
IsraelPoland, I’m pretty sure the costs of waiting until the other side attacks were absorbed, heavily, by Israelis.I think nuclear standoffs are categorically different, the entire MAD doctrine depends on the impossibility of a first strike.
At the end of the day, Egypt and the other Arab states took a series of recklessly aggressive steps against a rightfully paranoid and numerically inferior opponent. (And it’s not like Egypt was seriously threatened by Israel when they started massing with multiple Arab states, the previous war had been fought with heavy UK/French support after the Egyptians again acted pretty recklessly.)
Edit: A country? Crossed it out above as I should own up to a silly typo like that.
These aren’t standoffs, you think I’m talking about Russia, where yes MAD prevents either from attacking, I’m talking about the people living outside the small group of countries that have nukes. Iran isn’t covered by MAD, the u.s. could nuke Tehran tomorrow and nothing would be done besides severe diplomatic push back. Any “enemy of the u.s.” that doesn’t have nukes is subject to the constant fear of the u.s. war machine, which may not nuke you but will definitely relentlessly bomb your territory with drones. That doesn’t give them the right to attack the u.s. because they feel threatened.
Maybe they did act recklessly, that doesn’t make it right to attack them. Reckless is such a subjective term in that it’s heavily dependent on the party you sympathize with. You sympathize with Israel so you think the Arab states acted recklessly for the above reasons. I sympathize more with the Arab states because they were just blockading a single port to a country which they saw as being a serial bad actor in the region. This wasn’t some existential threat to them, they were still better off than near landlocked Jordan since they have a ton of Mediterranean coast. And again Israel was also fully mobilized, apparently a lot more then the Arab states.
Either way you and I can argue back and forth all day on who behaved more recklessly, just like north Koreans and south Koreans can argue back and forth all day on whose behaving recklessly, they won’t get anywhere because it’s a subjective opinion. This is why “preemptive strikes” are against international law, they always rely on these subjective terms like “threatening” and “reckless” such that any major power with significant sway in the international sphere can use them to justify any attack.
I just don’t think your position holds up under its own assumptions.
First, you require an Egypt that is simultaneously terrified of Israel but also blockades the Strait of Tiran for no obvious strategic or economic purpose. Yes, Israel was a part of the winning side in the previous war but also had significant British and French help.
Yes, Israel was fully mobilized, because Egypt had just crossed a line that Israel said was an act of war. Having neighbours on all sides who occasionally try to invade and murder all your people will also make you more willing to mobilize quickly, especially when about 1/3 of all Jews had just been murdered.
It just boggles the imagination that someone could look at the following facts and say “yeah, Israel started this.”:
A) Egypt, against maritime and international law (as brokered by the UN) and the terms of its previous peace deal, blockaded Israel from a major port. Israel declares (as per the terms of the peace treaty and Israel’s stated position) that this is an act of war.
B) Egypt then along with several neighbours deploys, along multiple borders, an army that outmans, outguns and outplanes (okay, has air superiority but that doesn’t work as well with the pattern!) Israel by a 2:1 ratio and 3:1 in the serious stuff (armour/planes.)
C) Israel on the night of the attack is alone, without allies or material support.
I cannot imagine you are seriously saying that despite all the facts on the ground, the correct course of action for Israel was to wait until being engaged and then just pray that this time things worked out for the Jews? That’s just wild to me. “Sorry kids, sure, we saw all those soldiers massing but we really thought the Jews were only due one massacre per half century. Whoopsies!”
You keep assuming the Arab states were going to attack when there is no evidence of that. It’s just the fact that Israel felt threatened, when every country feels threatened. The way nations form is the basic narrative that there is an enemy out there threatening you and you have to band together to take on that enemy. Even countries as secure as the u.s. will contrive threats from China or the cartels to point to an enemy.
Again I’m not going to argue which party fealt more threatened because that’s a subjective experience. There are countries that are just as threatened as Israel was and they don’t attack.
All the points you just made could be made for enemies of the u.s. like Iran, north Korea and Cuba. North Korea also suffered a horrific bombing campaign by a country on there border and suffers far more from economic sanctions then Israel ever did when the straits were closed. The embargo on Cuba has repeatedly been called out as against international law. If Cuba or north Korea demanded an end to sanctions or it would be war, and then the u.s. poured troops in to surround them on there borders would it be right for them to launch a first strike against Seoul or Florida?
No you’d probably say they made a threat to the u.s. with that ultimatum and the u.s. deploying troops was a valid response to that threat. Any sort of ultimatum that involves war should be considered a threat and an escalation. You don’t get a pass because you were treated horribly before.